DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to request for continued examination filed 21 Jan 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 8, 21 and 27 have been received and are acknowledged. Claims 14-20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 Jan 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, the Applicant argues: (1) Claims 10-13 and 21-27 do not recite an abstract idea and as such, do not fall into the grouping of “organizing human activity.” Applicant asserts that the recited limitations of exemplary amended claim 1 (and claims 8 and 21) “indicate that claim 1 is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity…” Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-27 also do not recite organizing human activity because of their dependence on Claims 1, 8 and 21. (Applicant’s response, 12-13). (2) Applicant further argues that Claim 1-13 and 21-27 “recite a technical solution to a technical problem…claimed a specific technical solution that solves specific technical problem… a specific technical problem related to “increasing portability and situation of control of a transaction instrument” on different wearable computing devise as stated in paragraph [012]…” (Applicant’s response, 14-15) Further referencing (Specification [12]) Applicant states “… that “the embodiments provide certain improvement from prior approaches in the field of mobile payments…” and “… that the additional elements of amended claim 1 recite specific improvements over prior notification systems for mobile device….recited a technical solution to a technical problem… as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application…is not an abstract idea under Step 2A…” Claims 8 and 21 and dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-27 are also not abstract under Step 2A, Prong 2 for similar reasons a Claim 1(Applicant’s response, 15-16) (3) Applicant also argues that the claims are amount to significantly more than the abstract idea “…because the claims contain an inventive concept…”(Applicant’s response, 17) Applicant asserts the “ …The claims contain an inventive concept of a non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements that addresses various approaches for transmitting notifications after a recently authorized transaction and enabling the user to execute the user interface workflow quicker on a mobile device…claimed various elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception itself….provides an improvement to prior notification systems for mobile devices. As discussed above, this is a problem in the field that is being addressed by the improvements applied by the claims to the functioning of a computer extracting data.”(Applicant’s response, 17-18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted below and previously the invention as recited does not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant’s own previous arguments state that the problem that is addressed is “… for scheduling notification in order to improve user engagement…” (See Applicant’s response, 9/24/2025, pg. 13) Applicant currently argues that the problem being addressed is “ increasing portability and situation of control of a transaction instrument.” The Specification states that “generating notifications that recommend a user execute a workflow for a recently authorized
transaction based at least in part on a context of the recently authorized transaction…” (Specification, [9]) This is not a technological problem; rather as stated previously, it is a business challenge. As such, at most it the invention recites an improvement to the abstract idea. The claimed invention recites using generic computing elements as a tool to implement an abstract idea (i.e. “apply it" See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further, updating data is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP2106.05 (d)) Similarly the use of a ‘deep link’ for it ordinary purpose is not “command and control.” As previously stated, unlike the patent eligible claims of Example 25 and Example 42, the instant claims do not recite ‘additional elements’ which recite significantly more than the abstract idea. (Applicant’s arguments, 1, 2 and 3)
Examiner withdraws the rejections under prior art in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended Claims 1, 8 and 21 now recite “…for an advanced stage in a split transaction workflow that omits a respective step in the split transaction workflow…” The specification describes “ …[96] …in some embodiments one or more blocks show in the flowcharts of Fig. 4 and 5 can be skipped or omitted …” It is unclear what “ a respective step” is as according to the specification all steps either singular or in combination or in total of the invention as shown in Fig. 4 and 5 can be omitted. No specific step being omitted is disclosed nor is how the omitted step is chosen/determined is also not disclosed. The term ‘respective step’ as used in this context is a relative term. As such, the metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Claims dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 21 are rejected by their dependency on a rejected 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.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (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. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) 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 (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 include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of generating notifications/recommendations for a user including those for split transactions. In the instant case, Claims 8-13 are directed to a process. Claims 1-7 are directed to a system. Claims 21-27 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Generating notifications/recommendation for a user is categorized akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently Amended) A …, comprising:
…; and
…identify an authorization of a transaction submitted by a merchant device based at least in part on an authorization code for the transaction, the authorization code indicating the transaction has been approved as a pending transaction;
determine a context parameter associated with the transaction based at least in part on transaction data;
determine a split classification for the transaction using a machine learning model based at least in part on the context parameter;
determine a time period for transmitting a notification associated with the split classification to a client device based at least in part on a notification rule, the notification rule comprising a time window based at least in part on a historical trend as to when a plurality of previous notifications have been activated;
…a deep link in a notification to the client device of a user associated with a payment instrument for the transaction within the time period based at least in part on the split classification the deep link being selected causes an activation of a client application to execute on the client device and directs the client application to display a split user interface workflow for an advanced stage in a split transaction workflow that omits a respective step in the split transaction workflow; and
activate the a split transaction workflow from the advanced stage based at least in part on a selection of the deep link on the client device and data from a split request received from the client application.
8. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
identifying, …, an authorization of a transaction submitted by a merchant device based at least in part on an authorization code for the transaction;
determining, …, a context parameter associated with the transaction based at least in part on transaction data;
determining, …, a split classification for the transaction using a machine learning model based at least in part on the context parameter;
determining, … a time period for transmitting a notification associated with the split classification to a client device based at least in part on a notification rule, the notification rule comprising a time window based at least in part on a historical trend as to when a plurality of previous notifications have been activated;
…, …, a deep link in the notification to the client device of a user associated with a payment instrument for the transaction within the time period based at least in part on the split classification, the deep link being selected causes an activation of a client application to execute on the client device and directs the client application to display a split user interface for an advanced stage in a split transaction workflow that omits a respective step in the split transaction workflow.
21. (Currently Amended) A …:
identify an authorization of a transaction submitted by a merchant device based at least in part on an authorization code for the transaction;
determine a context parameter associated with the transaction based at least in part on transaction data;
determine a split classification for the transaction using a machine learning model based at least in part on the context parameter;
determine a time period for transmitting a notification associated with the split classification to a client device based at least in part on a notification rule, the notification rule comprising a time window based at least in part on a historical trend as to when a plurality of previous notifications have been activated;; and
…. a deep link in a notification to the client device of a user associated with a payment instrument for the transaction within the time period based at least in part on the split classification, the deep link being selected causes an activation of a client … to execute on the client… and directs the client … to …a split user interface for an advanced stage in a split transaction workflow that omits a respective step in the split transaction workflow.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of identifying…determining… determining….determining… activate… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. transmitting; display…) 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 recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 8-13 are directed to a process. Claims 1-7 are directed to a system. Claims 21-27 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (processor, memory, machine readable instructions, computing device, client device, deeplink merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) ) (Specification, [17 ] link… [20] processor, memory and/or a network interface…[32] client device… processor-based such computer system… personal computer (e.g. a desktop computer, a laptop computer or similar device) a mobile computing device …)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-7, 9-14, and 22-27) introduces the additional element of (wherein clauses further defining: … notification… (Claims 2, 9 and 26; 5, 12 and 24; …notification context… (Claims 4, 11, and 23)…split request… (Claim 6)…time period … (Claim 27) ; machine readable instructions including: …determine…. (Claims 3, 10 and 22)…determine the time period.. (Claim 7)…receive… execute … (Claims 13, and 25). This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) ) (Specification, [20] processor, memory and/or a network interface…[32] client device… processor-based such computer system… personal computer (e.g. a desktop computer, a laptop computer or similar device) a mobile computing device …)
Therefore, Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record generally disclose: US 12141783 B1, Whitaker herein after referred to as Whitaker discloses a method and system of payment splitting including indication/message. US 20160117651 A1, Davis hereinafter referred to as Davis teaches another method for facilitating, sending and receiving of payments between users including splitting, history and monitoring features. KR 20180063592 A, Joong et. al. (Translation) hereinafter referred to as Joong teaches techniques for sharing payment including a deeplink feature that connects to an interface. US 2023/0412548 Al, Leclair et al hereinafter referred to as Leclair teaches determining a message frequency over a period of time [29].. Even though the prior art of record discloses the general concepts of splitting transactions and message sending/transmitting cited above, the prior art of record fails to teach -. The specific claim language that the prior art of record fails to teach is:
a deep link in the notification to the client device of a user associated with a payment instrument for the transaction within the time period based at least in part on the split classification, the deep link being selected causes an activation of a client application to execute on the client device and directs the client application to display a split user interface for an advanced stage in a split transaction workflow that omits a respective step in the split transaction workflow.
Conclusion
12. 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 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 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights