DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1 and 12 are directed to a system, claim 15 to a method. Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention and pass Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is:
transmit a product inventory for display, wherein the product inventory is based on a location of the customer;
receive a product selection;
receive identifying information of a customer;
verify the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information;
create an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information;
transmit the RTO agreement for display; and
receive an execution of the RTO agreement by the customer.
The abstract idea recited in claim 12 is:
receive identifying information regarding a customer;
transmit the identifying information;
display an indication of an identification of the customer based on the transmitted identifying information;
display a product inventory received, wherein the product inventory is based on a location of the customer computer;
receive a product selection;
transmit the product selection;
display an RTO agreement received based on the product selection and the identifying information;
receive an execution of the RTO agreement;
transmit the executed RTO agreement;
receive product delivery instructions; and
transmit the delivery instructions.
The abstract idea recited in claim 15 is:
determining a geographical location of the customer computer;
displaying a product inventory based on the determined geographical location;
receiving a product selection;
receiving identifying information regarding a customer;
verifying the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information;
creating an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information;
displaying the RTO agreement;
receiving an execution of the RTO agreement;
receiving product delivery information; and
delivering the product based on the received product delivery information.
The limitations above constitute a process that encompasses following rules or instructions, given that they are directed to the steps a party takes to facilitate execution of an agreement and/or delivery of a product. See para. [0003] to [0005] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations of social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the limitations above constitute a process that encompasses commercial activity, given that given that they are directed to the steps a party takes to facilitate execution of an agreement (i.e. contract) and/or delivery of a product (i.e. sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations). See para. [0003] to [0005] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The additional elements of the claims include:
Claim 1: a retail computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to; communicate with a customer computer configured to remotely perform RTO transactions with a retailer; wherein an application for communicating with the customer computer is installed on the customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the customer computer; the location detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer; to the application; via the application of the customer computer; via the application; on the customer computer.
Claim 12: a customer computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to; communicate with a retail computer associated with an RTO store; wherein an application for communicating with the retail computer is installed on the customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the customer computer; detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer; display a user interface in the application; to the retail computer; from the retail computer; via the application; via the user interface; on the user interface.
Claim 15: communicating with a remote customer computer configured to perform RTO transactions with a retailer; wherein an application for communicating with the remote customer computer is installed on the remote customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the remote customer computer; detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer; on the application of the customer computer; via the application of the customer computer; on the application of the customer computer.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are simply being used applied to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s own specification describes a generic computing system and elements in para. [0034] to [0045], for example. The elements in combination are nothing more than a generic computing system.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Examiner proceeds by carrying over the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2, i.e. the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, where these generic computing elements are simply being used to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements in combination are nothing more than a generic computing system. This is not significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20, there are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. Applicant is simply narrowing the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information. Therefore, the same conclusions apply, i.e. the recited abstract idea is not integrated into practical application, and the additional elements are not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-16, and 19 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabello et al. (US 20160314522) in view of Clark (US 20190325498).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction system {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
a retail computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to {corresponding structure found in para. [0005], [0006]}:
communicate with a customer computer configured to remotely perform RTO transactions with a retailer {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
transmit a product inventory to the application for display on the customer computer {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]};
receive a product selection via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
receive identifying information of a customer via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
verify the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information {for example, in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can be coupled to one or more external computer systems, such as third party servers that provide data verification services and calculation capabilities for the lease-purchase system and method; para. [0099]; also see para. [0121], [0122]};
create an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
transmit the RTO agreement to the application for display on the customer computer {as seen in Fig. 25; para. [0096]}; and
receive an execution of the RTO agreement by the customer via the application {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]}.
Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Clark, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a shopping application, teaches:
wherein an application for communicating with the customer computer is installed on the customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the customer computer {the data received from an RFID tag, barcode, QR code or similar can be displayed to the user on the display screen of the device, where the device may also allow the user to launch a product page information page or initiate an inquiry to the vendor (identified from the scanned code or from object information in the user profile) regarding further information pertaining to the object, e.g., size or dimension information, color, fabric, material properties, ingredients, object subject matter, availability, etc.; para. [0074]};
wherein the product inventory is based on a location of the customer, the location detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer {the user profile may include access to the user's global positioning system (GPS) or other location information, allowing NOWW shopping application 1180 to select a vendor closest to the user for quickest product delivery or recommend the nearest vendor with the determined product in stock; para. [0114]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Clark. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Clark, in order to facilitate recommending products better suited to a consumer needs, thereby reducing the likelihood of product return or exchange, in addition to paying multiple shipping and handling fees {para. [0002] of Clark}.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Kabello further discloses: wherein verifying the identity of the customer includes comparing the received identifying information to predetermined verification information {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]}.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the retail computer to perform an identity risk assessment based on the identifying information {a quick reference score quantifying the fraud risk identified by the fraud flag can be assigned by TransUnion, and a high level evaluation can be processed by the lease-purchase system and method at this point; para. [0121]; also see para. [0130]}.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a location of the customer computer {in some embodiments, locations can be mapped using a third-party mapping service (e.g., through a Google Maps™ with an application programming interface); para. [0143]}.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Kabello further discloses: wherein determining the location of the customer computer includes receiving a location indication via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can require an email address or physical address of the customer; para. [0070]}.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive product delivery instructions via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Kabello further discloses: wherein verifying the identity of the customer includes determining if the customer has an account based on the received identifying information {the lease-purchase system and method can then make a call to Telecheck to validate bank account information, and verify the reference check; para. [0121]}.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction system {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
a customer computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to {corresponding structure found in para. [0005], [0006]}:
communicate with a retail computer associated with an RTO store {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
display a user interface in the application {para. [0005], [0006]};
receive identifying information regarding a customer via the user interface {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
transmit the identifying information to the retail computer {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]};
display on the user interface an indication of an identification of the customer from the retail computer based on the transmitted identifying information {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]};
display on the user interface a product inventory received from the retail computer {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]};
receive a product selection via the application {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
transmit the product selection to the retail computer {para. [0079]};
display on the user interface an RTO agreement received from the retail computer based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
receive an execution of the RTO agreement via the application {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]};
transmit the executed RTO agreement to the retail computer {para. [0096]};
receive product delivery instructions via the application {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}; and
transmit the delivery instructions to the retail computer {para. [0076]}.
Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Clark, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a shopping application, teaches:
wherein an application for communicating with the customer computer is installed on the customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the customer computer {the data received from an RFID tag, barcode, QR code or similar can be displayed to the user on the display screen of the device, where the device may also allow the user to launch a product page information page or initiate an inquiry to the vendor (identified from the scanned code or from object information in the user profile) regarding further information pertaining to the object, e.g., size or dimension information, color, fabric, material properties, ingredients, object subject matter, availability, etc.; para. [0074]};
wherein the product inventory is based on a location of the customer computer detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer {the user profile may include access to the user's global positioning system (GPS) or other location information, allowing NOWW shopping application 1180 to select a vendor closest to the user for quickest product delivery or recommend the nearest vendor with the determined product in stock; para. [0114]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Clark. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Clark, in order to facilitate recommending products better suited to a consumer needs, thereby reducing the likelihood of product return or exchange, in addition to paying multiple shipping and handling fees {para. [0002] of Clark}.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to transmit location information of the customer computer to the retail computer {in some embodiments, locations can be mapped using a third-party mapping service (e.g., through a Google Maps™ with an application programming interface); para. [0143]}.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive account log in information via the user interface {this process can involve selecting a username and providing a password and security answer; once the customer is enrolled in ePay, they can view their Autopay details by logging into the lease-purchase system and method, and clicking the ePay button (icon); para. [0098]}.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction method {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
communicating with a remote customer computer configured to perform RTO transactions with a retailer {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
receiving a product selection via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
receiving identifying information regarding a customer via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
verifying the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information {for example, in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can be coupled to one or more external computer systems, such as third party servers that provide data verification services and calculation capabilities for the lease-purchase system and method; para. [0099]; also see para. [0121], [0122]};
creating an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
displaying the RTO agreement on the application of the customer computer {as seen in Fig. 25; para. [0096]};
receiving an execution of the RTO agreement via the application of the customer computer {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]};
receiving product delivery information via the application of the customer computer {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}; and
delivering the product based on the received product delivery information {in some embodiments, after the delivery date passes, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt contact with the user via telephone and confirm that the delivery has been completed; para. [0094]}.
Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Clark, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a shopping application, teaches:
wherein an application for communicating with the remote customer computer is installed on the remote customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the remote customer computer {the data received from an RFID tag, barcode, QR code or similar can be displayed to the user on the display screen of the device, where the device may also allow the user to launch a product page information page or initiate an inquiry to the vendor (identified from the scanned code or from object information in the user profile) regarding further information pertaining to the object, e.g., size or dimension information, color, fabric, material properties, ingredients, object subject matter, availability, etc.; para. [0074]};
determining a geographical location of the customer computer detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer {the user profile may include access to the user's global positioning system (GPS) or other location information, allowing NOWW shopping application 1180 to select a vendor closest to the user for quickest product delivery or recommend the nearest vendor with the determined product in stock; para. [0114]};
displaying a product inventory on the application of the customer computer based on the determined geographical location {para. [0114]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Clark. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Clark, in order to facilitate recommending products better suited to a consumer needs, thereby reducing the likelihood of product return or exchange, in addition to paying multiple shipping and handling fees {para. [0002] of Clark}.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Kabello further discloses: performing a risk assessment based on the identifying information {a quick reference score quantifying the fraud risk identified by the fraud flag can be assigned by TransUnion, and a high level evaluation can be processed by the lease-purchase system and method at this point; para. [0121]; also see para. [0130]}.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Kabello further discloses: receiving account log in information via the application of the customer computer {this process can involve selecting a username and providing a password and security answer; once the customer is enrolled in ePay, they can view their Autopay details by logging into the lease-purchase system and method, and clicking the ePay button (icon); para. [0098]}.
Claims 5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kabello and Clark, further in view of Bhanote et al. (US 20180260884).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kabello and Clark doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Bhanote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to location-based product merchandising, teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying the product inventory associated with the determined location of the customer computer {the method proceeds with the step of determining, using the location of the user device, a geobased dataset of goods or services currently available from at least one of the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device or from a selected one of the physical stores selected on the user device; para. [0005]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Clark to include the features of Bhanote. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Bhanote, in order to facilitate store-centric online experiences, and in-store experiences based on local digital demand {para. [0003] of Bhanote}.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Bhanote further teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying the product inventory associated with a retail store located in a region including the determined location of the customer computer {as illustrated in FIG. 13C, the method 200 may further include using, by the smart type rules engine 38, sales or inventory information regarding the goods or services currently available at the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device 34 or sales or inventory data 29 regarding the goods or services currently available at the selected one of the physical stores in generating the smart-type data 39 at step 260; para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Bhanote further teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying special order products associated with the determined location of the customer computer {for example, the system 10 may include in the promoted goods or services 42, products that are top sellers, or ones that are recently abnormally popular (i.e. products that are trendy); para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kabello and Clark doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Bhanote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to location-based product merchandising, teaches:: displaying the product inventory on the application of the customer computer includes displaying the product inventory associated with a retail store located in a region including the determined location of the customer computer {as illustrated in FIG. 13C, the method 200 may further include using, by the smart type rules engine 38, sales or inventory information regarding the goods or services currently available at the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device 34 or sales or inventory data 29 regarding the goods or services currently available at the selected one of the physical stores in generating the smart-type data 39 at step 260; para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Clark to include the features of Bhanote. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Bhanote, in order to facilitate store-centric online experiences, and in-store experiences based on local digital demand {para. [0003] of Bhanote}.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kabello and Clark, further in view of Roseman et al. (US 20030200156).
Claims 9 and 20
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the combination of Kabello and Clark doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Roseman, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating user-to-user sales, teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying new products and used products {the marketplace listings may be for used or preowned products, retail or other new products, and/or other types of products such as collectible; para. [0054]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Clark to include the features of Roseman. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Roseman, in order to facilitate efficiently creating and locating marketplace listings of products {para. [0009] of Roseman}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kabello and Clark, further in view of Allen et al. (US 20210166322).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Kabello further discloses: wherein displaying the product inventory on the application of the customer computer includes displaying the product inventory {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]}.
The combination of Kabello and Clark doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Allen, which is directed to modifying a product based on customer risk levels and generally pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches: [displaying] based on the risk assessment {the system may include a processor configured to: (1) receive, at or via at least one transceiver over a wireless communication channel, customer-related data; (2) receive current product data derived from the dynamically reconfigurable product, the current product data being stored in a memory unit; (3) generate a customer profile from computer analysis of the customer-related data and the current product data, the customer profile including at least one type of risk; (4) generate an updated dynamically reconfigurable product based, at least in part, upon the customer profile; (5) generate an electronic notification (capable of wireless communication or data transmission over one or more radio links or wireless communication channels) of the updated dynamically reconfigurable product; (6) transmit, at or via the at least one transceiver over the wireless communication channel, the notification to a computing device of the customer; and/or (7) receive, at or via the at least one transceiver over the wireless communication channel, an electronic response to the updated dynamically reconfigurable product from the computing device; para. [0244]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Clark to include the features of Allen. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements for products, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Allen, in order to incentivize risk-averse or low risk behavior in the form of lower rates that may be dynamically adjusted {para. [0008] of Allen}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 4/22/26 have been carefully considered. Examiner’s response follows.
Objection to the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their amendments overcoming the previous objections to the claims. These are withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant offers (claim text omitted for brevity):
Here, the Office alleges that independent claim 1 is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. Office Action, pp. 4-5. However, the claims here deal with a problem specific to the technological environment of the Internet. In conventional retail lease-to-own agreements, the customer is required to "shop at a retail store, and/or visit such a retail establishment to complete the RTO transaction and take possession of the goods." Specification, [0027]. This is because RTO entities must be able to track changes to goods offered at the store and be able to verify a customer's eligibility in real-time in order to complete the RTO transaction. The present claims provide "RTO transactions that may be entirely or nearly entirely completed through an e-commerce system, including disbursement of funds and signing of contractual agreements between the involved parties" such that the customer can "purchase the leased item at any time during the agreement." Id., [0026]-[0027]. Independent claim 1 specifically recites: […]
As recited, the claims include an application that allows the retailer to communicate with the customer remotely and uses GPS processes to determine the inventory of retail locations near the customer. Thus, the claims solve a problem of data coherence that is unique to the technological environment of the Internet and removes the need for real-time interaction and agreement between the customer and RTO entity. As such, these features represent elements that go beyond the alleged "certain method of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas to be "additional elements" under the subject matter eligibility test. Revised Guidelines, at 55. For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
While well taken, examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements, which are considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, are nothing more than generic computing elements, claimed in a results-oriented manner, that are applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is explicit that simply using other machinery as a tool also amounts to no more than merely applying the abstract idea to a computer, especially when claimed in a solution-oriented manner:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
[…]
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
In this case, the additional elements – including “wherein an application for communicating with the customer computer is installed on the customer computer by scanning a barcode via a camera integrated with the customer computer” and “the location detected by a GPS sensor integrated with the customer computer” in claim 1 (similar language found in claims 12 and 15) – are merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea and provide nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, examiner maintains that 1) the claims recite an abstract idea; 2) any additional elements are wholly generic and merely being applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Given that this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, examiner maintains that the claims are ineligible.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102; Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding applicant’s remarks concerning the prior art rejections, examiner notes that they are predicated on the amended claims, which required additional consideration and/or search, resulting in a new grounds of rejection seen above.
Accordingly, applicant’s remarks are moot. Instead of restating here, examiner directs applicant to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20040030640, which teaches: The present invention provides an online leasing system. The system allows a consumer to view availability listings for currently vacant units and those units that have been forecast as vacant. The system accepts consumer demographic data and performs a pre-lease screening process to determine the suitability of the consumer. Suitable consumers are allowed to enter into a leasing agreement while online or reserve the unit for future leasing. Payment of the required deposit and any other monies due are processed as electronic payments. Ancillary electronic commerce services can also be integrated into the system for the convenience of the consumer.
US 10282778, which teaches: Various examples described herein are directed to systems and methods for providing rent-to-own (RTO) transactions to consumers. For example, a computer device may serve a web page to a user device where web page comprises a plurality of product regions and each product region comprises information describing a product available for purchase. The computer device may receive via the web page and from the user device, a selection of a product to be purchased and receive via the web page and from the user device an indication that the selected product is to be purchased via an RTO transaction. The computer device may further execute an RTO routine. The RTO routine may initiate an RTO transaction to purchase the selected product.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights