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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 24, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on October 24, 2025.
• Claims 1, 5, 10, 13-14, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 24, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 12, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for creating a model that links multiple accounts and notifying an account owner of a contribution from another account owner in order to receive a matching contribution from the account owner. The Specification at [0002] states:
“Many methods for sharing expenses, transferring funds, and loaning money exist. Conventionally, a person wishing to procure funds with other people of various financial institutions does so through third party fund exchanges, which does not allow the person to effectively manage the funds. Accordingly, computerized systems and methods of establishing and managing a group account for various users may be desired”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of sharing expenses between multiple parties, which is a commercial and legal interaction which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a computing system, comprising: a network interface; a database structured to store information; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors and a memory, the processing circuit configured to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system cause the processing system to perform claim functions; a first user device; and one or more second user devices such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 where Applicant argues the claims reflect an improvement to computer-related technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002], stating:
“Many methods for sharing expenses, transferring funds, and loaning money exist. Conventionally, a person wishing to procure funds with other people of various financial institutions does so through third party fund exchanges, which does not allow the person to effectively manage the funds. Accordingly, computerized systems and methods of establishing and managing a group account for various users may be desired”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15, that the claims recite significantly more, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a computing system, comprising: a network interface; a database structured to store information; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors and a memory, the processing circuit configured to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system cause the processing system to perform claim functions; a first user device; and one or more second user devices. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Applicants further argues, on page 14 that the claims recite features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite generic computer hardware that is used in a customary manner which are insufficient to impart patentability under Alice. For example, the claims recite the following: a computing system, comprising: a network interface; a database structured to store information; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors and a memory, the processing circuit configured to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system cause the processing system to perform claim functions; a first user device; and one or more second user devices. The Examiner is unable to ascertain how the claims use these and other items of computer hardware in a manner other than their customary generic use. For example, the Specification recites the following concerning the processor:
“Each processor may be implemented as one or more general-purpose processors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), digital signal processors (DSPs), or other suitable electronic data processing components structured to execute instructions provided by memory.” See [0081].
Furthermore, the Specification recites the following regarding the computing devices: “An exemplary system for implementing the overall system or portions of the embodiments might include a general purpose computing devices in the form of computers... machine-executable instructions include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general purpose computer… to perform a certain function or group of functions.” See [0082].
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 10), and an apparatus (claim 20). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 10, and 20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 10, and 20 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a plurality of shared accounts containing group member information; receive, a request from a first member to form a shared account with one or more second members, the request including information for identifying a first account of the first member; generate the shared account and a first model for the shared account, the shared account including a first link between the shared account and the first account, and the first model generated according to the shared account; transmit, one or more messages to the one or more second members; generate, one or more second links between one or more second accounts of the one or more second members and the shared account, the one or more second links generated according to a response to the one or more messages received; generate one or more second models for the first member and the one or more second members, the one or more second models generated according to information relating to respective members of the first member and the one or more second members, wherein a respective second model for a second member of the one or more second members include an indication to transmit a notification associated with the shared account to a respective second user device of the second member; ingest a transaction history for the second member, the transaction history including transactions for each of a plurality of transaction types; receive, a first input initiating an inbound transfer from the first account to the shared account to increase a value associated with the shared account by an amount, wherein the first input includes a selection indicating to ignore a first transaction type of the plurality of transaction types; identify a subset of transactions of the transaction history based on the first input, the subset of transactions excluding any transactions of the first transaction type; transmit, according to the first model and the respective second model of the second member, the notification to the second member, the notification including a recommendation determined according to the subset of transactions and the first input; receive, a second input, the second input including a selection of an acceptance to initiate a matching inbound transfer to the shared account, to increase the value associated with the shared account by the amount: and automatically update the respective second model of the second member to increase notifications associated with the shared account to be transmitted to the second member based on the acceptance. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for creating a model that links multiple accounts and notifying an account owner of a contribution from another account owner in order to receive a matching contribution from the account owner, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The mere nominal recitation of a network interface, database, and processing circuit do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computing system, comprising: a network interface; a database structured to store information; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors and a memory, the processing circuit configured to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system cause the processing system to perform claim functions; a first user device; and one or more second user devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of linking accounts in a database; generating account models; receiving input from a user; and receiving and transmitting messages) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200258158 A1 (“Gilliam”) discloses providing a virtual social banking platform, where the system creates and powers social banking networks made up of participants saving, investing, borrowing, and lending money through a computerized platform. A social savings network allows users to use social networking and social communications to monitor and encourage other participants to meet their savings goals, while a lending circle network allows participants to periodically contribute funds to a network reserve account, and, in rotation, individually access at least a portion of the funds in the network reserve account as funds for a loan, investment, or other payout option. AI and machine learning allows the system to track the spending and saving habits of users to offer incentives for meeting financial goals and to connect users with external financial institutions and products.
US 8478691 B2 (“Solomon”) discloses a method of saving money using a mobile phone to reach a savings goal. The method includes creating an electronic account; computing a periodic sum of money to be saved by the user according to the savings goal; receiving a first electronic message from the mobile device, the first electronic message includes a description of a service or product not purchased by the user and an amount of money not spent; storing the description and the amount in the account; computing a running total of the amount of money not spent. The method may also include transmitting a second electronic message, the second electronic message acknowledging the first electronic message, the amount not spent by the user, the amount remaining to be saved to reach the savings goal and/or the total amount not spent.
US 20180335928 A1 (“Van Os”) discloses user interfaces for managing peer-to-peer transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for initiating and managing transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces corresponding to completed transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for providing visually distinguishable message object appearances based on message designation. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for activating accounts for accepting and sending transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for exchanging accounts for use in a transfer. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for splitting transfers between two or more accounts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694