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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on November 21, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 17, and 18 are amended.
Claim 22-23 has been added.
Claims 10-14 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 7 and 15-16 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 17-23 are currently pending.
This action is made Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the pending claims do not recite an abstract idea in any of the three permissible groupings. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards a system for coordinating payments to caregivers for services rendered. The coordinated payments fall into the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the payments are an example of commercial interactions. Since commercial interactions are recognized as abstract, Applicant’s claimed invention is recognized as an abstract idea. The use of a computer to perform steps in the claimed invention does not remove the abstract nature of the claimed invention because the computer is merely used as a tool of implementation. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because independent claims 1 and 17 include additional limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant specifically asserts that the claims recite a specific improvement over the prior art in the fields of electronic payment processing. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention included the additional limitations of an engagement and care support platform ("ECSP") computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, a first client device, a plurality of second client devices, and a payment processor computer device. These additional limitations are a recitation of generic computer components, and the recitation of generic computer components amounts to instructions to merely apply the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations also do not recite a specific improvement over the prior art in the fields of electronic payment processing because the claimed invention does not improve the functionality of any technology. Any improvement lies within the abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the pending claims are drawn to a practical application that applies any alleged abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not apply the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea because the additional limitations only serve to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additional limitations of this sort do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Without additional limitations that provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the abstract idea lacks any meaningful limits. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention includes an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated into the claim, which is indicative that the additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not include or describe a particular machine or manufacture. Applicant’s specification states that client devices may be any device capable of accessing the internet, including a desktop computer, which is not a particular machine or manufacture. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention recites a large number of additional elements that extend well beyond the scope of methods of organizing human activity. Applicant further asserted that the claims are clearly more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements’ ability to extend the scope of the claimed invention does not address the issue of patent eligibility. The additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter because the additional elements recite computer components that are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. As previously stated, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components that are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest a computer device configured to “receive, via the first client device, a real-time transaction message identifying purchase information for the user including (i) an item being purchased by the user and (ii) a purchase cost associated therewith,” and “input at least some of the purchase information into a machine learning model configured to output an identifier that identifies a first caregiver based upon the input as being the caregiver of the plurality of caregivers associated with the user who has previously purchased items in a same category of the one or more categories of items as the item being purchased on behalf of the user, the machine learning model trained based upon the historical data.” Examiner disagrees. The Benkreira reference teaches the limitation to “input at least some of the purchase information into a machine learning model configured to output an identifier that identifies a first caregiver based upon the input as being the caregiver of the plurality of caregivers associated with the user who has previously purchased items in a same category of the one or more categories of items as the item being purchased on behalf of the user, the machine learning model trained based upon the historical data.” (Benkreira: pgh 39), and the Babar reference teaches the limitation to “receive, via the first client device, a real-time transaction message identifying purchase information for the user including (i) an item being purchased by the user and (ii) a purchase cost associated therewith,” (Babar: pgh 14). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form. Claim 2 depends from claim 22, which is not a previous claim. Claim 18 depends from claim 23, which is also not a previous claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 17-23 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 17. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
receive, [via the first client device,] user information for the user associated with the first client device, wherein the user information includes user payment account information;
receive, [via the plurality of second client devices,] for each of the plurality of caregivers, (i) caregiver payment account information and (ii) historical data indicating one or more categories of items previously purchased at least in part by the caregiver on behalf of the user;
store, in association with each of the plurality of caregivers, caregiver information including (i) a token representing the caregiver payment account information, (ii) the historical data, and (iii) data identifying the second client device corresponding to the caregiver;
receive, [via the first client device,] a real-time transaction message identifying purchase information for the user including (i) an item being purchased by the user and (ii) a purchase cost associated therewith;
input at least some of the purchase information [into a machine learning model configured] to output an identifier that identifies a first caregiver based upon the input as being the caregiver of the plurality of caregivers associated with the user who has previously purchased items in a same category of the one or more categories of items as the item being purchased on behalf of the user, [the machine learning model trained] based upon the historical data;
in response to outputting [by the machine learning model] the first caregiver as having previously purchased items within the same category for the user, automatically transmit a request to pay a portion of the purchase cost [to a second client device associated with the first caregiver] causing the item to be displayed; [on the second client device] along with the purchase cost.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The engagement and care support platform ("ECSP") computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, first client device, plurality of second client devices, machine learning model, and payment processor computer device in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 17 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an engagement and care support platform ("ECSP") computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, a first client device, a plurality of second client devices, machine learning model, and a payment processor computer device. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 18-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 17 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 18-23 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 18-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 17-21 are not patent-eligible.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 8-9, 17-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangat (US 11,853,919 B1) in view of Babar (US 2018/0225649) in view of Benkreira (US 2021/0312528).
Regarding claim(s) 1:
Mangat teaches:
an engagement and care support platform ("ECSP") computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, (Mangat: col 4, lines 5-10, “…the financial institution computing system includes a processor and memory.”)
the ECSP computer device in communication with a first client device associated with a user (Mangat: col 6, lines 20-25, “Generally, method is initiated when a first user attempts to make a purchase from merchant via the mobile wallet client running on the first user’s mobile device.”)
a plurality of second client devices associated with a plurality of caregivers, and a payment processor computer device, [the at least one processor of the ECSP computer device is programmed to:] (Mangat: col 3, lines 29-32, “Additionally, the mobile wallet system allows a first user to contact a second user of the mobile wallet system to request funding for certain transactions.”)
receive, via the first client device, user information for the user associated with the first client device, wherein the user information includes user payment account information; (Mangat: col 4, lines 20-30, “The account database is where the financial institution computing system stores information relating to financial accounts held with the financial institution, including account balance information and account ownership information.”)
receive, via the plurality of second client devices, for each of the plurality of caregivers, (i) caregiver payment account information and (ii)[historical data indicating one or more categories of items previously purchased at least in part by the caregiver on behalf of the user]; (Mangat: col 2, lines 5-10, “The method includes receiving, by a processor of the financial institution computing system from a first user device, auto-fund permissions relating to a preauthorization for the financial institution to fund purchases of a second user of the mobile wallet system, wherein the auto-fund permissions include an identity of a second user and transaction restrictions.”)
store, in association with each of the plurality of caregivers, caregiver information including (i) a token representing the caregiver payment account information, (ii) the historical data, and (iii) data identifying the second client device corresponding to the caregiver; (Mangat: col 4, lines 25-35, “The mobile wallets profiles database maintains a database of mobile wallet users and associations of the mobile wallet users with various accounts in the account databases…” Mobile wallets utilize tokens.)
Mangat does not teach, however, Babar teaches:
receive, via the first client device, a real-time transaction message identifying purchase information for the user including (i) an item being purchased by the user and (ii) a purchase cost associated therewith; (Babar: pgh 14, “The requestor may select a transaction to be split…”)
[in response to outputting by the machine learning model the first caregiver as having previously purchased items within the same category for the user,] automatically transmit a request to pay a portion of the purchase cost to a second client device associated with the first caregiver causing the item to be displayed on the second client device along with the purchase cost. (Babar: pgh 14, “The push notification may provide the requestor an option to split the transaction with other consumers (also referred to herein as “requestees”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2). Mangat/Babar does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Benkeira teaches:
…historical data indicating one or more categories of items previously purchased at least in part by the caregiver on behalf of the user; (Benkreira: pgh 6, “In some exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, the item category can include (i) computers, (ii) electronics, (iii) jewelry, or (iv) appliances.”)
input at least some of the purchase information into a machine learning model configured to output an identifier that identifies a first caregiver based upon the input as being the caregiver of the plurality of caregivers associated with the user who has previously purchased items in a same category of the one or more categories of items as the item being purchased on behalf of the user, the machine learning model trained based upon the historical data; (Benkreira: pgh 39, “…the spend by the consumer can be automatically analyzed, using a machine learning procedure, to determine the consumer’s likely spend. Various factors can be used in generating the machine learning procedure including, but not limited to, the consumer’s past spending habits…”)
in response to outputting by the machine learning model the first caregiver as having previously purchased items within the same category for the user, automatically… (Benkreira: pgh 39, “If the repurchase falls within predicted spend determined by the machine learning procedure, then the repurchase can be initiated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat/Babar to include the teachings of Benkreira because it may be beneficial to provide an exemplary system for repeating prior purchases (Benkreira: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the response further includes the first portion expressed as a percentage of the purchase cost to pay, and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit the percentage of the purchase cost to pay to the payment processor computer device. (Mangat: col 9, lines 7-12, “For example, the second user can reply with the offer to pay for a certain percentage of the transaction…”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Mangat further teaches:
determine a final percentage of the purchase cost that is covered based upon one or more percentages of the purchase cost to pay from the one or more second client devices; and (Mangat: col 9, lines 10-15, “…the payment code generated…may draw funds from multiple payment sources at the agreed upon split percentages…”)
if the final percentage is less than 100%, assign the remaining percentage to a predetermined payment account. (Mangat: col 9, lines 10-15, “…the second user can reply with the offer to pay for a certain percentage of the transaction (e.g., the first user pays 50% while the second user pays the remaining 50%).)
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to assign the remaining percentage to a user payment account associated with the user. (Mangat: col 9, lines 10-15, “…the second user can reply with the offer to pay for a certain percentage of the transaction (e.g., the first user pays 50% while the second user pays the remaining 50%).)
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Babar further teaches:
wherein a purchase associated with the purchase information previously occurred, and (Babar: pgh 76, “The payment network which may be part of certain transactions represents existing proprietary networks that presently accommodate transactions for credit cards..”)
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit the request to pay a portion in response to receiving an invoice for the purchase. (Babar: pgh 88, “A consumer account number may be, for example, a sixteen-digit account number…”; pgh 20, “In response to a requestor completing a transaction with a transaction account, a transaction account issuer may transmit a notification to a mobile device of the requestor…The notification may include an option to split the charge.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mangat further teaches:
wherein a purchase associated with the purchase information will occur when payment is made, and (Mangat: col 6, lines 10-17, “The memory includes transaction logic that allows the POS system to accept mobile wallet payments from the mobile devices. The payments are account transfers form the financial institution into accounts associated with the merchant.”)
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to complete the purchase upon confirmation of payment from the payment processor computer device. (Mangat: col 6, line 64 – col 7, line 4, “If there are sufficient funds, the financial institution computing system transmits an approval message to the POS system and transfers funds from the first user’s account to an account associated with the merchant.”)
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the caregiver payment account information includes a secure and unique token linked to payment account information for the first caregiver stored by the payment processor computer device. (Mangat: col 9, lines 60-67, “In other arrangements, the payment code is a digital token or file that can be transmitted to the merchant POS system from the first user’s mobile device…”)
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive the purchase information from one of the first client device or a second client device of the plurality of second client devices. (Mangat: col 10, lines 5-15, “The user interface includes a QR code…which can be scanned by the merchant POS system to effectuate payment form the second user…to the merchant.”)
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive the purchase information from a vendor computer device. (Mangat: col 10, lines 15-20, “The payment to the merchant is processed…The financial institution computing system receives an updated transaction request with the updated payment information from the merchant POS system.”)
Regarding claim(s) 17:
Mangat teaches:
An engagement and care support platform ("ECSP") computer device comprising] at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, (Mangat: col 4, lines 5-10, “…the financial institution computing system includes a processor and memory.”)
the ECSP computer device in communication with a first client device associated with a user, (Mangat: col 6, lines 20-25, “Generally, method is initiated when a first user attempts to make a purchase from merchant via the mobile wallet client running on the first user’s mobile device.”)
a plurality of second client devices associated with a plurality of caregivers associated with the user, and (Mangat: col 3, lines 29-32, “Additionally, the mobile wallet system allows a first user to contact a second user of the mobile wallet system to request funding for certain transactions.”)
a payment processor computer device, [the at least one processor of the ECSP computer device is programmed to:] (Mangat: col 1, lines 25-30, “One embodiment relates to a method of facilitating a payment to a merchant via a mobile wallet system provided by a financial institution computing system…”)
receive, via the first client device, user information for the user associated with the first client device, wherein the user information also includes user payment account information; (Mangat: col 4, lines 20-30, “The account database is where the financial institution computing system stores information relating to financial accounts held with the financial institution, including account balance information and account ownership information.”)
receive, via the plurality of second client devices, for each of the plurality of caregivers, (i) caregiver payment account information and (ii) [historical data indicating one or more categories of purchases]; (Mangat: col 2, lines 5-10, “The method includes receiving, by a processor of the financial institution computing system from a first user device, auto-fund permissions relating to a preauthorization for the financial institution to fund purchases of a second user of the mobile wallet system, wherein the auto-fund permissions include an identity of a second user and transaction restrictions.”)
store, in association with each of the plurality of caregivers, caregiver information including (i) a token representing the caregiver payment account information, (ii) the historical data, and (iii) data identifying the second client device corresponding to the caregiver; (Mangat: col 4, lines 25-35, “The mobile wallets profiles database maintains a database of mobile wallet users and associations of the mobile wallet users with various accounts in the account databases…”)
Mangat does not teach, however, Babar teaches:
receive, via the first client device, a real-time transaction message identifying purchase information identifying (i) a purchase for the user, and (ii) a cost associated with the purchase; (Babar: pgh 14, “The requestor may select a transaction to be split…”)
[in response to outputting by the machine learning model the first caregiver as previously having made purchases within the same category for the user, automatically] transmit a first request to pay a portion of the cost to a corresponding second client device associated with each caregiver of the plurality of caregivers causing the purchase to be displayed on the second client device along with the purchase cost. (Babar: pgh 14, “The TAI may transmit request to the requestees to transfer funds.”; pgh 15, “The request may be transmitted via a peer-to-peer payment system…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2). Mangat/Babar does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Benkeira teaches:
…historical data indicating one or more categories of purchases; (Benkreira: pgh 6, “In some exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, the item category can include (i) computers, (ii) electronics, (iii) jewelry, or (iv) appliances.”)
in response to outputting by the machine learning model the first caregiver as previously having made purchases within the same category for the user, automatically… (Benkreira: pgh 39, “If the repurchase falls within predicted spend determined by the machine learning procedure, then the repurchase can be initiated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat/Babar to include the teachings of Benkreira because it may be beneficial to provide an exemplary system for repeating prior purchases (Benkreira: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 18:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23. Mangat further teaches:
wherein the secondary response from the second client device of the second caregiver includes a percentage of the corresponding purchase or flat amount to pay. (Mangat: col 9, lines 7-12, “For example, the second user can reply with the offer to pay for a certain percentage of the transaction…”)
Regarding claim(s) 19:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Mangat further teaches:
store a plurality of user preferences for each of the plurality of caregivers and the user; (Mangat: col 4, lines 30-40, “Further, the mobile profiles database stores other information concerning the users’ mobile wallets, such as contacts lists, user repayment plans, purchase restrictions, and the like.”)
determine a first portion of the plurality of caregivers to transmit the first request to based upon the plurality of user preferences; and (Mangat: col 6, lines 30-40, “The first user, via the mobile wallet client, is presented the opportunity to contact a third-party (i.e., a second mobile wallet user), such as a relative or friend of the first user, to request funding for the transaction.”)
transmit the first request to the determined portion of caregivers. (Mangat: col 7, lines 25-35, “After the first user selects a second user, the first user has the option to send a note to the second user along with the request to fund by interacting with the note field…of the user interface.”)
Regarding claim(s) 20:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Babar further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine a second portion of the plurality of caregivers to transmit the second request to based upon the plurality of user preferences. (Babar: pgh 21, “In various embodiments, the TAI application may automatically split the charge equally between the requestor and the requestees. For example, if the requestor selects three requestees to split a $100 transaction with the requestor, each requestee may receive a request for $25.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2).
Regarding claim(s) 22:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Babar further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive a response from the second client device associated with the first caregiver- indicating a first portion of the purchase cost that the first caregiver will pay toward the purchase cost of the item for the user; and (Babar: pgh 24. “…the GUI may allow the requestor to track the status of repayment.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat/Benkreira to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2). Mangat further teaches:
in response to receiving the response from the second client device, transmit to the payment processor computer device (i) a first message including the token associated with the first caregiver and the first portion for processing payment of the first portion; and (Mangat: col 9, lines 60-66, “…the payment code is a digital token or file that can be transmitted to the merchant POS system…”)
(ii) a second message including the user account payment information for processing payment of a second portion of the purchase cost. (Mangat: col 16, lines 1-5, “…generate a digital token corresponding to a financial account of the second user, the digital token comprising a geographic restriction defined by the second user…”)
Regarding claim(s) 23:
The combination of Mangat/Babar/Benkreira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Babar further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive a primary response from a second client device of the plurality of second client devices associated with a first caregiver of the plurality of caregivers, wherein the primary response indicates that the first caregiver will pay a first portion of the cost; (Babar: pgh 24. “…the GUI may allow the requestor to track the status of repayment.”)
receive a secondary response from a second client device associated with a second caregiver, wherein the secondary response indicates that the second caregiver will pay a second portion of the cost; and (Babar: pgh 24, “The GUI may display which requestees have submitted payment, and which have not.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat/Benkreira to include the teachings of Babar because there is a need to improve the process of requesting funds from different individuals through different payment applications (Babar: pgh 2). Mangat further teaches:
in response to receiving the primary response and the secondary response, transmit to the payment processor computer device (i) a first message including the token associated with the first caregiver and the first portion for processing payment of the first portion; and (Mangat: col 9, lines 60-66, “…the payment code is a digital token or file that can be transmitted to the merchant POS system…”)
(ii) a second message including the token associated with the second caregiver and the second portion for processing payment of the second portion. (Mangat: col 16, lines 1-5, “…generate a digital token corresponding to a financial account of the second user, the digital token comprising a geographic restriction defined by the second user…”)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangat/Babar in view of Wilson (US 10,810,574).
Regarding claim(s) 21:
The combination of Mangat/Babar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mangat/Babar does not teach the limitations below. Wilson further teaches:
wherein the first client device is configured to execute a chatbot, and wherein the real-time transaction message is generated by the chatbot based upon an audio input received from the user. (Wilson: col 2, lines 5-10, “Embodiments of this disclosure include technical solutions to add functionality to chatbots, including automatically detecting requests to make payment transactions, and suggesting payment transactions.”; col 26, lines 40-50, “Fig. 8 illustrates an embodiment for processing payments using voice-activated commands on a voice-controlled speaker or virtual assistant…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mangat/Babar to include the teachings of Wilson because there is a need to improve chatbots to initiate payments within a conversation (Wilson col 1, lines 20-30).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Wohied et at (US 2012/0254021) discloses a friendly funding source wherein a user can select one or more friendly funding sources to may a payment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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 O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
December 23, 2025
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693