(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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The preamble of claim 18 reads:
A computer readable medium containing instructions operable to execute a method for disbursement of funds associated with a multiparty transaction, comprising:
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 18 is directed to a process. Analysis of claim 18 applies to analysis of claims 19 and 20.
Step 2A Revised (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 18 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A Revised (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 18 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B (Revised)
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 18 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Analysis.
Analysis
Claim 18:
A computer readable medium containing instructions operable to execute a method for disbursement of funds associated with a multiparty transaction, comprising:
determining that a web browser has been navigated to a shopping cart page of a retail website;
in response to the determination, executing a web browser extension;
reading information regarding products stored in the shopping cart by the web browser extension;
comparing the information regarding the products to a whitelist; and
based on the comparison, injecting data into at least one field on a payment page native to the retail website by the web browser extension.
Claim 18 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements per the instant specification.
There is:
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
Claim 18 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. For example, “in response to the determination, executing a web browser extension;” can be initiated by a human while following a procedure by activating a browser extension icon or link. Courts have routinely found conventional computer processing functions (e.g. sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the steps when each is taken alone. That is, the steps involved in the recited process undertake their roles in performance of their activities according to their generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes there are no meaningful limitations in claims 18-20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding claims 1-17: Claims are eligible- no mental or manual equivalent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al., US 10,282,778 “Bernstein” IDS filed June 16, 2025, in view of Kabello et al., US 2016/0314522 “Kabello” IDS filed June 16, 2025.
In Bernstein see at least:
(underlined text is for emphasis)
Regarding claim 12. A method for disbursement of funds associated with a multiparty transaction, the method comprising:
executing a web browser extension in response to a web browser having been navigated to a shopping cart page of a retail website;
(B1: col. 1, lines 31-47) Rent-to-own (RTO) generally refers to a rental-purchase. An RTO transaction is typically a type of legally documented transaction under which goods are leased or rented in exchange for a regularly scheduled payment with the option to purchase at some point during the agreement. The goods are typically durable goods such as furniture, consumer electronics, home appliances, tires, etc., but also may include other merchandise such as musical instruments and jewelry, among others. RTO transactions began in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's. Today, according to the Association of Progressive Rental Organizations (APRO), RTO is an $8.5-billion industry. It is estimated that the RTO industry currently serves more than 6 million customers a year. According to APRO, there are approximately 9,800 stores in all 50 states, Mexico and Canada, and the RTO industry serves 4.8 million customers (households) at any given time in the year.
(D43: col. 4, lines 42-63) In another aspect, various embodiments are directed to a computer-implemented RTO computer software application or plug-in for choosing an RTO payment option on an e-commerce website. The computer-software “plug-in” or application may integrate RTO as a payment option in the software of an e-commerce website or platform. Once the application or plug-in is loaded or integrated to an e-commerce website or platform, the e-commerce website or platform may offer RTO as an option for financing the acquisition of goods. When a consumer selects RTO as a payment method, the consumer's transaction may be completed on-line as an RTO transaction. For example, the consumer may enter into a lease or rental contract with the implementing company (e.g., through the RTO management system). The implementing company may purchase the selected good, which is provided to the consumer. Thus, the plug-in may be a computer executable computer software application that is integrated directly into the retailer's website/platform as a new payment method. The plug-in may be available at the checkout to provide a consumer with insufficient cash or credit the ability to enter into an RTO transaction. Please note: The integrated RTO payment plug-in qualifies as a native application.
(D76: col. 15, lines 3-23) FIG. 9 is a diagram of another embodiment of an environment 501 for facilitating rent-to-own transactions. As shown generally in FIG. 9, the consumer 10 uses the computer device 20 to access the network 550. Via the network 550, the consumer 10 interacts with a retail e-commerce server/computer 530. In some embodiments, the retail e-commerce server/computer 530 is implemented by a third-party retailer not associated with the implementing company of the RTO program. As shown in FIG. 9, the retail e-commerce server/computer 530 comprises an RTO computer software application plug-in 532 suitable for accessing and communicating with the RTO management application 544. The plug-in 532 may integrate RTO as a payment method in the software of the retail e-commerce server 530. The retail e-commerce server/computer 530 and server/computer 540 may be of any appropriate design, in general, including a main frame, mini-computer or a personal computer system. As shown in FIG. 9, the retail e-commerce server 530 communicates with the RTO management system 540. For example, the retail e-commerce server 530 may access the RTO management application 544 using the plug-in 32 [sic]. Please note: As illustrated in Fig. 9, the RTO plug-in is integrated into the retail e-commerce server. As illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16, information entered via the RTO plug-in, e.g. FlexShopper page, qualifies as information used as payment information entered into a native retail page.
(D102: col. 24, lines 25-46) FIG. 43 is a diagram of another embodiment of an environment 2000 for facilitating rent-to-own transactions. The environment 2000 comprises the retail e-commerce server/computer 530, the user device 20 and consumer 10, and the RTO management system 540. The various components of the environment 2000 may be in communication with one another via any suitable wired or wireless network, such as the network 550 described herein above. The retail e-commerce server/computer 530 may execute a retailer web management application 2002 and an RTO computer software application plug-in 532. The web management application 2002 may serve to the user device 20 a retailer web page 2003 describing goods available for purchase. Example screen shots from an example retailer web page 2003 are provided in various figures herein. Although the application 2002 is shown as a single application, in some examples the retailer web page may be served by multiple applications that may execute on one or more computing devices of the retail e-commerce server/computer 530. The plug-in 532 may integrate RTO as a payment method for users 10 to purchase goods from the retailer through the retailer web page 2003.
reading information from the shopping cart by the web browser extension;
(D52: col. 7, lines 9-16) The RTO management system 30 uses the identifying data 70 received by the RTO management application 36 to process program criteria and to determine if the good qualifies as a transaction-eligible good under the RTO program. For example, the RTO management application 36 considers program criteria such as the price, type and/or description of the good.
(D84: col. 17, line 58-col. 18, line 13) FIG. 14 is a flow chart showing one embodiment of a process flow 800 for using the RTO plug-in 532 and/or 564 for selecting an RTO transaction to pay for a good 580 selected from a retailer e-commerce server 530 by a customer that is already registered with an RTO management system. For example, the customer may already have an established account with the RTO management system and a predetermined spending limit (802). At 805, the customer, such as the consumer 10, may select the RTO payment method at checkout on an e-commerce website as payment for a selected good 580. For example, the new RTO customer may select RTO field 610 from the screen 600. The RTO plug-in 532 and/or 564 provide an interface allowing the customer to access the customer's account with the RTO management system, either through an interface provided by the retailer e-commerce server 530 or by a direct connection with the RTO management system. If the customer's spending limit is not equal to the price of the good 580, the customer is informed of the balance, and the customer may remove and add different items to the cart until the spending limit is reached, at 810. If there is a sufficient spending limit balance, the customer is informed of the spending limit balance and terms of the RTO agreement or lease. Please note: Items placed in cart are read by RTO plug-in.
(D120: col. 30, lines 35-48) FIG. 49 is a screen shot showing one embodiment of a page 2300 that may be displayed to the consumer 10 as part of the web page 2003. The page 2300 comprises information about various products or goods as well as a retailer (e.g., a retailer implementing the retail e-commerce server/computer 530). For example, the page 2300 may comprise a plurality of regions. Each region may provide information related to the retailer and/or goods available for purchase. For example, a retailer company banner region 2302 may identify the retailer. A filter region 2304 may provide various filters that allow the consumer 10 to search for and/or filter products, for example, by name, by price, by brand, by type, etc. In some examples, various advertisement regions 2306 also appear on the page 2300. Please note: In this embodiment, RTO plug-in 532 is available at checkout which requires the consumer to access the electronic shopping cart.
imposing a constraint by the web browser extension upon the multiparty transaction based upon the information;
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings of Bernstein and further upon the combination of Bernstein-Kabello. Although Bernstein
determines if the good qualifies as a transaction-eligible good under the RTO program by considering program criteria such as the price, type and/or description of the good, Bernstein does not expressly mention imposing a constraint by the web browser extension upon the multiparty transaction based upon the constraint. Kabello on the other hand would have taught Bernstein techniques that use constraints when determining whether a product is transaction-eligible.
In Kabello see at least:
[Kabello: 0002] “Rent to own” and/or “lease-purchase” transactions are lease agreements for the use of merchandise by a consumer for personal, family, or household purposes, for an initial period of four months or less that are automatically renewable with each payment after the initial period, and that permit the consumer to become the owner of the merchandise. The transaction is generally defined as not being a credit sale or a financing arrangement and does not create a security interest as title is not transferred at agreement creation. The transaction allows consumers to acquire the use of household products without incurring debt or the long-term financial obligations associated with credit sales. Customers who do not choose to obtain ownership can return the merchandise without further obligation.
[Kabello: 0082] In some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can display restrictions to lease-purchase selections. For example, FIG. 13 illustrates a display screen 1300 showing excluded product types and dependencies of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention. In some embodiments, products can be excluded from lease-purchase eligibility, and the user can be notified of these exclusions. Some embodiments include lease-purchase exclusion and lease-purchase dependencies. For example, in some embodiments, specific products cannot be ordered individually. Examples shown in FIG. 13 (list 1310) include a mattress and box springs that cannot be ordered separately, ordering a bed-frame must include a mattress and box spring, a dining table and chairs must be ordered together, and television accessories must be ordered with a television. Please note: The list of excluded products includes but is not limited to Built-in Appliances, Built-in Home Theaters, projectors and in-wall speakers, small appliances. Two types of constraints are identified: built-in and small.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Kabello, impose constraints on the multi-party transaction, which would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Kabello to the teachings of Bernstein would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
determining satisfaction of the constraint by the web browser extension; and
Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale of Bernstein-Kabello applied to claim 12 and further upon the combination of Bernstein-Kabello. In Bernstein-Kabello, as illustrated in Fig. 13 of Kabello, built-in and small appliances are excluded. For the situation where the consumer initiates rent/lease-to-own transaction to acquire a large appliance that is not built-in, the constraint is satisfied as determined by the RTO extension.
initiating a disbursement of funds by said web browser extension, including injecting data into at least one field on a payment page native to the retail website
Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale of Bernstein-Kabello applied to claim 12 and further upon the combination of Bernstein-Kabello.
In Bernstein-Kabello see at least:
(Bernstein: D86: col. 18, lines 38-61) FIGS. 15-23 are screen shots showing embodiments of a user interface 1500 that may be provided to the consumer 10 to register with the RTO management system (e.g., register for an RTO program administered by the RTO management system). FIG. 15 is a screen shot showing one embodiment of a screen 1502 of the user interface 1500. For example, the screen 1502 may be displayed to the consumer 10 to allow the consumer 10 too create an account with the RTO management system. The account may be utilized, as described herein, to allow the consumer to enter RTO transactions for the acquisition of goods. The screen 1502 comprises various fields where the consumer 10 may enter information describing the consumer 10 such as, for example, a first and last name, an e-mail address, and a password. In some embodiments, the consumer 10 may continue the application process by selecting the Continue button. In some embodiments, the screen 1502 also comprises a Log in button. For example, the consumer 10 may select the Log in button if the consumer already has an active account. FIG. 56 is a screen shot showing another embodiment of the screen 1502′ of the user interface 1500. For example, the screen 1501′ may include a menu 1501 allowing the user 10 to indicate where they learned of the RTO service offered by the implementing company.
Please note: As illustrated in Fig. 9, the RTO plug-in is integrated into the retail e-commerce server. As illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16, information entered via the RTO plug-in, e.g. FlexShopper page, qualifies as information used as payment information entered into a native retail page.
Regarding claim 13: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 12 regarding product information read from the shopping cart.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 13 and further upon the combination of Bernstein-Kabello regarding comparing products in the shopping cart to a whitelist. In Bernstein-Kabello, a product exclusion list is illustrated in Fig. 13 of Kabello. It would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date, to produce a list of products that are not excluded, i.e. a whitelist, and incorporate it into the system of Bernstein-Kabello since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc. For example, the type and description of a product that indicate the product is a large counter-top microwave appliance satisfies a constraint, i.e. not a large built-in microwave appliance.
Regarding claims 16 and 17: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 12 and further upon the combination of Bernstein-Kabello.
In Bernstein-Kabello see at least:
(Bernstein: D61: col. 10, lines 14-39) For example, as another feature of the present disclosure, a consumer 10 may take the good to the cash register at the retail store. The RTO management application 36 and/or 130 may communicate a token to the mobile device 60. The token may indicate, for example, the selected good and an indication that the consumer 10 has been approved for an RTO transaction involving the good. The consumer 10 may communicate the token to a cash register or other check-out device at the retail store. The cash register or other check-out device may accept the token as an indication that the implementing company will provide the retailer with payment for the object. The token may be communicated to the cash register or check-out device in any suitable manner. In some embodiments, the token may be represented as a machine-readable code on a display of the mobile device 60. The cash register or other check-out device may comprise capabilities for scanning the machine readable code, thereby receiving the token. Also in some embodiments, the mobile device 60 may be configured to transmit the token to the cash register or other check-out device via a wireless connection such as, for example, a WI-FI and/or BLUETOOTH connection. After delivery of the good, the RTO management application 36 and/or 130, at 324, administers an RTO, lease/rental relationship with consumer for handling matters including, but not limited to, collection of periodic payments, collections and returns, as described herein. Please note: a) the token serves same purpose as Applicant’s virtual credit card; and b) Fig. 6 illustrates a process flow used to receive a consumer’s banking and credit information and applies to the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 9 of Bernstein recited above. The embodiment illustrated in Fig. 9 integrates the RTO plug-in into the retail e-commerce website. The RTO plug-in communicates with the RTO management system 540 not native to the retail website.
(Bernstein: D66: col. 11, line 54-col. 12, line 5) FIG. 6 is a flow chart showing one embodiment of a process flow 350 that may be executed by the RTO management application 36 and/or 130 to determine a spending limit for a consumer 10. At 352, the RTO management application 36 and/or 130 may receive a credit score or scores for the consumer 10. In some embodiments, the consumer 10 may not have a credit history, in which case this action may be omitted. For example, the RTO management application 36 and/or 130 may query a credit bureau regarding the consumer 10. If no history is available, the credit bureau may indicate so in a return report. At 354, the RTO management application 36 and/or 130 may receive data describing the consumers banking activity. This may include, for example, activity on a checking or other bank account of the consumer 10 and/or activity using pre-paid debit cards. In some embodiments, the banking activity data describes a predetermined period such as, for example, the ninety (90) days prior to the requested transaction.
Regarding claim 17: The token feature recited above is applicable to online transactions involving the integrated RTO plug-in. Once issued to the consumer, the token can be passed online to the merchant/retailer via the merchant website in order to have the leased product(s) shipped or ready for pickup.
Regarding claims 18-20: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 12 and dependents of claim 12 reciting similar subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-11: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 12 alone and/or dependents of claim 12 reciting similar subject matter.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NewsBites US, Cite. No. 1 IDS filed June 16, 2025 “Flexshopper, Inc. Announces the Launch Of Flexshopper Wallet, A Mobile Application Enabling Consumers To Lease To Own Merchandise From Any Major Retailer With Their Smartphone” discloses: The FlexShopper Wallet is a mobile application that can be downloaded on any Android or Apple smartphone. With FlexShopper Wallet, consumers can apply for a spending limit and immediately receive "FlexDollars." With "FlexDollars" on their phone, consumers can choose items at major retail stores by snapping a picture and submitting a simple form through the application. Once all terms and conditions are accepted by the consumer, FlexShopper facilitates the lease and fulfillment of the order, which may include pick up in store, if available.
Business Wire, Cite. No. 6 IDS filed June 16, 2025 “Rent-A-Center Completes Acquisition of Merchants Preferred,” discloses: “We are thrilled to welcome Merchants Preferred into the Rent-A-Center family. Merchants Preferred complements our existing capabilities and the combined organization will have the most comprehensive offering in the industry,” stated Mitch Fadel, Chief Executive Officer of Rent-A-Center. “Merchants Preferred brings a proven technology platform, scalable infrastructure and a strong centralized retail partner support team that will enable us to execute against our growth goals in the over $20 billion virtual rent-to-own industry,” said Fadel.
US 2019/0281030 (Isaacson et al.) IDS filed June 16, 2025 “System and Method for Providing Simplified In-Store, Product-Based and Rental Payment Processes,” discloses:
[0017] When the user has finished shopping, each product that is identified in the various ways set forth herein can be combined into a single purchasing interaction utilizing a browser payment API or other payment process. The server can request via the browser API payment information for the product or products that the user has in their shopping bag or that they have chosen. In this scenario, the user can have both a virtual shopping cart, as well as a literal shopping cart in store and at the same time. The device can respond to the browser API request with payment data which enables the server to process a payment for the products. The payment data can be a token for one time use, credit card information, or confirmation that an online payment service such as PayPal or a cryptocurrency wallet has processed the payment. Online payment services such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and the Payment Request API or the like are thus applied to the brick-and-mortar purchasing experience. Thus enabling a consistent purchasing experience both online and in-store. Stored payment data at the site can also be used.
US 10,089,682 (Bernstein et al.) IDS filed June 16, 2025 “Computer-Implemented System and Method for a Rent-to-Own Program,” discloses: (Abstract) A computer system may receive from a computer device input data describing a consumer and, based on the input data, determine a spending limit for the consumer. The computer system may also receive from the computer device an indication of a good selected by the consumer. Based on data describing the good, the computer system may determine whether the good is transaction eligible. When the good is transaction eligible, the computer system may transmit to the computer device an indication of terms of the rent-to-own transaction, such as a periodic payment due under the rent-to-own transaction. When the terms are accepted by the consumer, the computer system may instruct a fulfillment computer to direct the good to the consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 June 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights