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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s RCE with Amendments/ Remarks filed on 11/18/2025.
Priority Date: Prov.(06/20/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1, 8, and 15
Cancelled[Previously] claims; 3, 10, and 17
Pending claims : 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) 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. (Step-2A) 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, (Step-2B) 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 significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 8 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for splitting of transactions.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 8 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 8 recites the limitations of:
presenting, within a user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer;
obtaining a split request through a user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for a plurality of transactions with one or more individuals;
presenting, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions occurred between the start time and the end time;
obtaining a selection of a plurality of transactions presented through a user interface; obtaining a selection of the one or more individuals, the selection comprising a respective personal identifier for each of the one or more individuals;
generating a split message comprising the respective personal identifiers, the recipient transaction account, and a plurality of transaction identifiers representing the selection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the split message bundles the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request to be processed by a transaction processing service; and
sending the split message to the transaction processing service as a single network transmission.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Splitting transaction costs among individuals.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the 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 itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 1, and 15.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-14 and 16, 18-23 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-14 and 16, 18-23 are directed towards:
Using [with dependent claims], identifying, within the user interface, the plurality of transactions as a suggested set of transactions to include in the split request; presenting, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions; obtaining, through the user interface, a split amount for the one or more individuals; and wherein the split message further includes the split amount; wherein the split amount specifies an equitable split of the total cost for the plurality of transactions, and a user defined portion of the total cost for the plurality of transactions for each of the one or more individuals; obtain a description through the user interface; and bundle the description in the split message.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-14, 16, and 18-23 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharad KUMAR et al (US 2018/0218354 A1) in view of Huynh (US 2020/0193723 A1), Jeevan Babu (US 2020/0265409 A1), and Leo Gil et al (US 20160087921 A1).
Ref claim 1, Kumar discloses a system, comprising:
a client computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the client computing device (para [0014]; via a system for splitting a transaction across multiple systems is disclosed. A consumer (also as a “requestor”)/user …the transaction account issuer [“TAI”] …create a transaction record of charge [“ROC”] to the transaction…[0015]; TAI transmit a push notification to a mobile device of the requestor…) to at least:
[[ present, within a user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer;]]
[[obtain a split request through the user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for the plurality of one or more transactions with one or more individuals;]]
present, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions occurred between the start time and the end time; obtain a selection of the plurality of transactions presented through the user interface (para [0015-16]; via the TAI may transmit a push notification to a mobile device of the requestor… may provide the requestor an option to Split the transaction with other consumers…select a transaction to be split and select additional people or accounts …of the transaction… the requester may select requestees…[0018]; FIG. 1, a system 100 for charge splitting…The TAI hub 120/servers/databases store information relevant to a consumer/transaction history/personal information etc. …[0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0029]; via the requestor initiate a charge split…The TAI may calculate an even split among the requestees …);
obtain a selection of the one or more individuals, the selection comprising a respective personal identifier for each of the one or more individuals (para [0063];via the data set [e.g., BLOB]…identifier to a specific issuer or owner of the data…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…); and
send a split message to a transaction processing service, the split message comprising a plurality of transaction identifiers representing the plurality of transactions and the respective personal identifier for each of the one or more individuals (para [0028]; via The TAI transmit a transaction notification to the requestor…via a SMS text message…[0029]; via the requestor initiate a charge split…The TAI may calculate an even split among the requestees …);
generate a split message comprising the respective personal identifiers, a recipient transaction account, and a plurality of transaction identifiers representing the selection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the split message bundles the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request to be processed by a transaction processing service (para [0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…); and
[[send the split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission.]]
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the step to: present, within the user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer.
However, Huynh being in the same field of invention discloses the step to: present, within the user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer (para [0028]; via FIGs. 5-8, a NFC check-in tag and a NFC check-out tag are located at an entrance and an exit of a parking lot…Upon the user selecting/parking spot, the user actuates a start timer button [start time]… Upon a conclusion of the parking session, the user scans the NFC check-out tag which stops the timer [implied end time]…and starts a payment transaction…providing meter-free NFC parking.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by KUMAR to include the disclosures as taught by Huynh to facilitate meter-free NFC parking with start-stop NFC-timer.
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the step to: obtain a split request through the user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for the plurality of transactions with one or more individuals.
However, Babu being in the same field of invention discloses the step to: obtain a split request through the user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for the plurality of transactions with one or more individuals (para [0022-23]; via FIG. 2; via splitting bills…step 205. A group of customers…transactions/related to good/service at restaurant outing…[0031];via multiple transactions selected for a split payment request [implied single request]… [0033],FIG.2; via website/with an option to split the cost for the transactions…among the customers…[0039]; Interface 400/list of potential other customers/for a split payment request…[0041];via the system for splitting and payment request directly…type of merchant[ a restaurant]…[0042], FIG.2; via payment application…Ex. if the paying customer…to a certain restaurant with another customer before…payment split request……………….[0050]; via one embodiment, the interface include options for one or more of splitting cost evenly…total cost of the transaction.to allocate cost as desired…)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by KUMAR to include the disclosures as taught by Babu to facilitate with single payment/split payment [transactions] of restaurant -party with friends[other users].
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the step to: send the split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission.
However, Gil being in the same field of invention discloses the step to: send the split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission (para [0078]; FIG. 5C; via a method for routing financial messages 62 [implied transaction identifier]/…the encapsulated financial message 140/identified user-together, in a single data structure or as part of a single network transmission…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by KUMAR to include the disclosures as taught by Gil to facilitate sending split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission.
Ref claim 2, Kumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: identify, within the user interface, the plurality of transactions as a suggested set of transactions to include in the split request (para [0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…).
Claim 3,(Canceled).
Ref claim 4, Kumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: obtain, through the user interface, a split amount for the one or more individuals; and wherein the split message further includes the split amount (para [0027], FIG.5; via a process 500 for splitting a charge…The TAI may create a record of charge. The ROC include information such as transaction amount, time, merchant name etc. …).
Ref claim 5, Kumar discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the split amount specifies an equitable split of the total cost for the plurality of transactions (para [0024], FIG.3, the GUI 200….to split a $100 transaction/…total amount of the transaction…split evenly between the requestees…).
Ref claim 6, Kumar discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the split amount specifies a user defined portion of the total cost for the plurality of transactions for each of the one or more individuals (para [0024], FIG.3, the GUI 200….to split a $100 transaction/…total amount of the transaction…split evenly between the requestees…).
Ref claim 7, Kumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive, from the transaction processing service, a recommended set of transactions to split, wherein the plurality of transactions are included in the recommended set of transactions; and present, within the user interface, the recommended set of transactions to split as a preselected set of transactions to split (para [0031]; via the TAI transmit a funds transfer request to each requestee …The TAI may display a list of requestees completed the transfer…).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 9 is rejected as per the reasons set forth in claim 2.
Claim 10, canceled.
Claims 11-14 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 4-7 respectively.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 16, is rejected as per the reasons set forth in claim 2.
Claim 17, canceled.
Claim18 is rejected as per the reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 6-7 respectively.
Ref claim 21. Kumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: obtain a description through the user interface; and bundle the description in the split message (para [0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…).
Ref claim 22, Kumar discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: obtaining, through the user interface, a description; and bundling the description in the split message (para [0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…).
Ref claim 23, Kumar discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: obtain a description through the user interface; and bundle the description in the split message (para [0023], FIG. 2, a GUI 200 for splitting a charge…[0070]; via website or Internet-based Graphical User Interface [GUI] accessible by the users…[0064]; via the data set/…various identified users…).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/20/2025 [ RCE on 11/18/2025] have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments are similar to previous arguments already submitted and addressed on last office action. Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments mailed on August 18, 2025 and Interview Summary on October 22, 2025
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One; Prong two; 2B].
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
Applicant’s REMARKS:
“This is a full and timely response to the outstanding final Office Action mailed August 18, 2025. Upon entry of this response, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended….;…;
Reconsideration of the presently pending claims in view of the amendments and the following remarks is respectfully requested.”
I. Summary of Telephone Interview:(Noted).
II. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 Comprise Statutory Subject Matter:
“The Office Action indicates…;…;…;
Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-23 are patent eligible because they are not directed to a judicial exception. …;…; Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
A. Claims 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-23 Are Patent Eligible Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Set Forth in MPEP § 2106.04. …;…;
B. Claims 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-23 Are Patent Eligible Under Step 2A, Prong 2, Set Forth in MPEP § 2106.04. …;…;
C. Claims 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-23 Are Patent-Eligible Under Step 2B Set Forth in MPEP § 2106.05….;…;”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from payment accounts and transactions is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(presenting, within a user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer;
obtaining a split request through a user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for a plurality of transactions with one or more individuals;
presenting, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions occurred between the start time and the end time;
obtaining a selection of a plurality of transactions presented through a user interface; obtaining a selection of the one or more individuals, the selection comprising a respective personal identifier for each of the one or more individuals;
generating a split message comprising the respective personal identifiers, the recipient transaction account, and a plurality of transaction identifiers representing the selection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the split message bundles the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request to be processed by a transaction processing service; and
sending the split message to the transaction processing service as a single network transmission.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: “…”. When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(presenting, within a user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer;
obtaining a split request through a user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for a plurality of transactions with one or more individuals;
presenting, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions occurred between the start time and the end time;
obtaining a selection of a plurality of transactions presented through a user interface; obtaining a selection of the one or more individuals, the selection comprising a respective personal identifier for each of the one or more individuals;
generating a split message comprising the respective personal identifiers, the recipient transaction account, and a plurality of transaction identifiers representing the selection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the split message bundles the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request to be processed by a transaction processing service; and
sending the split message to the transaction processing service as a single network transmission.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “presenting, within a user interface, a transaction timer; …, store a start time for the transaction timer; …, store an end time for the transaction timer; obtaining … transactions with one or more individuals; presenting, … the start time and the end time; obtaining a selection of a plurality of… the one or more individuals; generating a split message comprising the respective personal identifiers, …the split message bundles the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request to be processed by a transaction processing service; and sending the split message … service as a single network transmission.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0030]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, 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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Moreover, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
III. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 Are Patentable over Kumar, Huy and Babu under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
‘The Office Action indicates…;…;…; Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections of the claims fail to meet the standard for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A. The Office Has Not Established a Proper Motivation to Combine the References…;…; …;
B. The Cited References Do Not Teach or Suggest "present, within the user interface, a preselection of the plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions occurred between the start time and the end time, as Recited in Amended Claim1….;…;….;
C. The Cited References Do Not Teach or Suggest "bundled the plurality of transaction identifiers within a single request" as Recited in Amended Claim 1. …;…;…;
In response: Examiner Disagrees with Applicant’s assertions:
However, Kumar et al discloses (Obviously) all claimed limitations including amended elements in view of Huynh and Babu; such as
via Kumar (para [0014]; via a system for splitting a transaction across multiple systems is disclosed. A consumer (also as a “requestor”)/user …the transaction account issuer [“TAI”] …create a transaction record of charge [“ROC”] to the transaction… [0015]; via the TAI may transmit a push notification to a mobile device of the requestor… may provide the requestor an option to Split the transaction with other consumers…select a transaction to be split and select additional people or accounts …of the transaction…[0018]; FIG. 1, a system 100…provide a graphical user interface [“GUI”]…);
However, via Huynh being in the same field of invention discloses the step to present, within the user interface, a transaction timer; in response to a first interaction with the transaction timer, store a start time for the transaction timer; in response to a second interaction with the transaction timer, store an end time for the transaction timer (para [0028]; via FIGS 5-8, a NFC check-in tag and a NFC check-out tag are located at an entrance and an exit of a parking lot…Upon the user selecting/parking spot, the user actuates a start timer button [start time]… Upon a conclusion of the parking session, the user scans the NFC check-out tag which stops the timer [implied end time]…and starts a payment transaction…providing mete-free NFC parking.). and
Moreover, Babu being in the same field of invention discloses the step to obtain a split request through the user interface, the split request representing a single request to split a total cost for the plurality of transactions with one or more individuals (para [0022-23]; FIG. 2; via splitting bills…step 205, A group of customers…transactions/related to good/service at restaurant outing…[0031];via multiple transactions selected for a split payment request [implied single request]… [0033],FIG.2; via website/with an option to split the cost for the transactions…among the customers…[0039] Interface 400/list of potential other customers/for a split payment request…[0041];via the system for splitting and payment request directly…type of merchant [a restaurant]…[0042],FIG.2; via payment application…Ex. if the paying customer…to a certain restaurant with another customer before…payment split request….[0050]; via one embodiment, the interface include options for one or more of splitting cost evenly…total cost of the transactions.to allocate cost as desired…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Kumar to include the disclosures as taught by Babu to facilitate with single payment/split payment [transactions] of restaurant -party with friends[other users].
Further, However, Gil being in the same field of invention discloses the step to: send the split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission (para [0078]; FIG. 5C; via a method for routing financial messages 62 [implied transaction identifier]/…the encapsulated financial message 140/identified user-together, in a single data structure or as part of a single network transmission…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by KUMAR to include the disclosures as taught by Gil to facilitate sending split message to a transaction processing service as a single network transmission.
In reponse to III (A, B, C):
The Examiner respectfully notes that when a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider a prior art relevant or related to the invention sought to be patented, then the prior art is "analogous." See Dannv. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 229 (1976).
Notwithstanding whether the prior art is analogous, "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or [in] a different one. If a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR. at 1740. Excerpted from BPAI decision re. 09/850,383, March 31, 2008, pp. 21 - 22.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldsmith et al (US 20150242834 A1) discloses Split Payment Engine and Method to Facilitate Electric Transaction Aggregation.
JAIN et al (US 20150142661 A1) discloses Shared Expense Management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691