39DETAILED 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 amendment filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 18 and 22 are currently amended.
Claim 16 and 20 are previously cancelled.
Claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to an inherently technical design, and recites the claim language. (Response page 3)
Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims facilitate the splitting transaction between participants, which amounts to fundamental economic practice.
Applicant further argues “a technical improvement that “individuals may split a charge to a transaction account initiated by any mode, even if different individuals do not have accounts with the same peer-to-peer payment system.” Applicant submits that “determining, by the client device, a unique identifier of a requestee based at least in part on a selection of the indicator for the peer-to-peer system from the second user interface,” “transmitting, by the client device and based at least in part on a selection of an indicator associated with the peer-to-peer system, a funds request to the peer-to-peer system, wherein the funds request comprises the unique identifier of the requestee and the requested amount,” and “receiving, from the peer-to-peer system, the requested amount associated with the funds request,” is closely related to the “technical solution” described and therefore integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (response at 7-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the argued improvement is an abstract idea, specifically fundamental economic practice as the claims are sending funds requests to users related to a transaction that occurred with a merchant, through selected payment means, and then receiving the payment.
Applicates arguments regarding step 2b are similar to the arguments regarding step 2A prong 2 and are similarly not persuasive.
For a t least the reasons stated 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 1-15, 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 8 is addressed. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents tracking repayment status of group payments which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
A method, comprising
displaying, by a client device, a first user interface of a mobile application, the first user interface comprising a notification of a charge for a transaction that has occurred with a merchant in a list of transactions, the first user interface comprising a user interface option for initiating a split of the charge;
generating, by the client device, a list of requestees from a plurality of contacts stored in a memory of the client device in response to a selection of the user interface option;
displaying, by the client device, a second user interface of the mobile application that includes the list of requestees, the second user interface being configured to display a requested amount and an indicator for a peer-to-peer system to indicate a respective requestee has an account with the peer-to-peer system;
determining, by the client device, a unique identifier of a requestee based at least in part on a selection of the indicator for the peer-to-peer system from the second user interface; and
transmitting, by the client device and based at least in part on a selection of an indicator associated with the peer-to-peer system, a funds request to the peer-to-peer system, wherein the funds request comprises the unique identifier of the requestee and the requested amount; and
receiving, from the peer-to-peer system, the requested amount associated with the funds request.
The additional elements of claim 8 such as “by the client device,” and “the mobile application” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of tracking repayment status of group payments.
Hence, claim 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-14, 16-20 and 22 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 9 recites the additional elements of “wherein the first user interface is automatically displayed in response to receiving the notification from a remote computing device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Audi et al. (US 2015/0302384 A1) Teaches: system for charge splitting.
Song et al. (US 2017/0169508 A1) Teaches: Enabling peer to peer loan transaction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights