PAYMENT METHODS AND APPARATUSES, ELECTRONIC DEVICES, AND READABLE MEDIA

Application No. 18/396,261

• Filed: Dec 26, 2023
• Examiner: WEINER, ARIELLE E
• Art Unit: 3689
• Tech Center: 3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
• Assignee: Alipay.com Co., Ltd.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 12/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.

Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 05/21/2024 and 07/17/2024 have been reviewed and considered.
Priority
The current Application claims priority from Foreign Patent No. CN202111051331.4 filed 09/08/2021. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 05/10/2019.

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 .

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11-12 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein, before creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state, comprises: determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for; or determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for.” In light of paragraphs [0100-0109] of Applicant’s specification, as well as, claim 12 (which depends from claim 11) reciting that the message indicates the first order has been paid for when the it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how it is determined that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for and how it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets “wherein, before creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state, comprises: determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for; or determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for” as “wherein, before creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state, comprises: determining that the first order is not in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for; or determining that the first order is in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for.”
Claim 12 inherits the deficiencies noted in claim 11, and is therefore rejected on the same basis.

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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).

Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.

Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 20 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-one or more computers; and
-one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising:
-receiving a payment instruction sent by a first user by scanning an order QR code, wherein the order QR code is generated based on a first order corresponding to a target product, and the first order is generated based on a purchase operation performed by a second user for the target product;
-setting the first order to an occupied state, wherein a payment instruction of a user other than the first user is rejected to be executed when the first order is in the occupied state;
-creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state; and
-performing a payment operation based on the second order
The above limitations recite the concept of allowing a first user to pay for an order made by a second user while prevent duplicate payment. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)

The limitations of setting the first order to an occupied state, wherein a payment instruction of a user other than the first user is rejected to be executed when the first order is in the occupied state; creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state; and performing a payment operation based on the second order are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “setting,” “creating,” and “performing” ” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.

Similarly, the limitations of one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising: receiving a payment instruction sent by a first user by scanning an order QR code, wherein the order QR code is generated based on a first order corresponding to a target product, and the first order is generated based on a purchase operation performed by a second user for the target product are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the operations are performed by one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions and that the order code is an order QR code, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions” and “order QR code” language, “perform” and “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.

Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-one or more computers; and
-one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising:
-receiving a payment instruction sent by a first user by scanning an order QR code, wherein the order QR code is generated based on a first order corresponding to a target product, and the first order is generated based on a purchase operation performed by a second user for the target product;
-setting the first order to an occupied state, wherein a payment instruction of a user other than the first user is rejected to be executed when the first order is in the occupied state;
-creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state; and
-performing a payment operation based on the second order
The additional elements of claim 20 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0149] of Applicant’s specification – “These computer program instructions can be provided for a general-purpose computer, a dedicated computer, an embedded processor, or a processor of another programmable data processing device to generate a machine, so the instructions executed by the computer or the processor of the other programmable data processing device generate an apparatus for implementing a specific function in one or more processes in the flowcharts and/or in one or more blocks in the block diagrams.” Specifically, the additional elements of computer-implemented system, one or more computers, one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions, and an order QR code are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, setting data, creating data, and performing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.

Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.

Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).

In the case of claim 20, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.

Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.

Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 20. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of computer-implemented method and an order QR code, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 20 indicated above.

Claim 19 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 20. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional elements of non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions, a computer system, and an order QR code, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 20 indicated above.

Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.

Dependent claims 2-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-18 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8-14, and 16-18 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 3-4, 7, and 15 recite the additional elements of a database, a unified payment platform, payment redirect page address information, an application, the order QR code, and a payment interface , but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-18 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 19, and 20, dependent claims 2-18 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. allowing a first user to pay for an order made by a second user while prevent duplicate payment) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that 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. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.

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 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0343398 A1), hereinafter Han, in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0160296 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a computer-implemented method for payment, comprising:
-receiving a payment instruction sent by a first user by scanning an order code, wherein the order code is generated based on a first order corresponding to a target product, and the first order is generated based on a purchase operation performed by a second user for the target product (Han, see at least: “the service device can be provided with an information code such as a two-dimensional code including a service device identifier, and correspondingly, the ordering service request is a code scanning ordering request based on the two-dimensional code [i.e. receiving a payment instruction sent by a first user by scanning an order code]. Specifically, the ordering service request includes a service device identifier [i.e. wherein the order code is generated based on a first order] and a user identifier” [0046] and “one of multiple users completes order payment independently. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record, the payment order is made in multiple copies, and each copy of the payment order is pushed to each user terminal corresponding to the user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record [i.e. and the first order is generated based on a purchase operation performed by a second user for the target product] respectively” [0058] and “the service item data may include food data [i.e. a first order corresponding to a target product] served to be selected by a user” [0052]);
-setting the first order to an occupied state, wherein a payment instruction of a user other than the first user is rejected to be executed when the first order is in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field [i.e. setting the first order to an occupied state] included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected [i.e. wherein a payment instruction of a user other than the first user is rejected to be executed when the first order is in the occupied state] and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. setting the first order to an occupied state], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]);
-creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment [i.e. of the first user based]. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record [i.e. creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order], the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code of the order data record respectively” [0059] and “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order … if yes, the payment request is rejected [i.e. the first order in the occupied state] and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. the first order in the occupied state], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]); and
-performing a payment operation based on the second order (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record, the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders [i.e. based on the second order], where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code of the order data record respectively; according to a received payment request triggered for the payment order, payment is made for the payment order. In this manner, the payment order can be split into a plurality of payment sub-orders such that a plurality of ordering users can make payment respectively [i.e. performing a payment operation], thus helping to share the service resource cost among the plurality of ordering users” [0059]).
Han does not explicitly disclose an order code being an order QR code.
Park, however, teaches a bill splitting system (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of an order QR code (Park, see at least: “User A is connected to a mobile bill of a tag (including a unique table number) received through a near field communication (NFC) function or a quick response (QR) [i.e. an order QR code] code recognition using his or her user terminal 100a” [0032]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Han as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a bill splitting system.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of an order QR code, as taught by Park, to the teachings of Han would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of an order QR code, as taught by Park, into the method of Han would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow users to perform bill splitting using a mobile terminal (Park, [0009]).

Regarding claim 2, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-wherein, before setting the first order to an occupied state:
-determining whether the first order is in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined [i.e. wherein, before setting the first order to an occupied state: determining whether the first order is in the occupied state] according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. determining whether the first order is in the occupied state], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]); and
-performing the step of setting the first order to the occupied state if it is determined that the first order is not in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result [i.e. performing the step of setting the first order to the occupied state if it is determined that the first order is not in the occupied state]; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).

Regarding claim 3, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 2. Han further discloses:
-wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises:
-determining whether a data row, in a database, that the first order is in is locked (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid [i.e. determining whether a data row, in a database, that the first order is in is locked] is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record [i.e. a data row, in a database] corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises:], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]); and
-determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the data row is not locked (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record [i.e. the data row] corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order [i.e. determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the data row is not locked], and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).

Regarding claim 6, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 2. Han further discloses:
-wherein prompt information indicating that the first order is paid for is sent to the first user if it is determined that the first order is in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request [i.e. wherein prompt information indicating that the first order is paid for is sent to the first user if it is determined that the first order is in the occupied state]” [0058]).
Han does not disclose the prompt information indicating that the first order is being processed.
Park, however, teaches a bill splitting system (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of prompt information indicating that the first order is being processed (Park, see at least: “a total amount of an order, i.e., the total payment amount, is 21,000 won, and the amount to be paid is updated to the remaining amount (13,000 won) after user A pays 8,000 won. The affiliate POS 200 changes the status from “Pending Payment” to “Bill Splitting in Progress” and then displays the change status through its own screen as shown in (f-1)” [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Han with Park for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.

Regarding claim 7, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-wherein setting the first order to an occupied state, comprises: locking a data row, in a database, that the first order is located in (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid [i.e. wherein setting the first order to an occupied state, comprises: locking a data row that the first order is located in] is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record [i.e. a data row, in a database] corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).

Regarding claim 11, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-wherein, before creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record, the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code [i.e. based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state] of the order data record respectively; according to a received payment request triggered for the payment order, payment is made for the payment order. In this manner, the payment order can be split into a plurality of payment sub-orders such that a plurality of ordering users can make payment respectively, thus helping to share the service resource cost among the plurality of ordering users … after each sub-order is paid according to a received sub-order payment request triggered for each payment sub-order, the following is further included: payment states of the respective payment sub-orders corresponding to the payment order are obtained; whether there is a payment sub-order in an unpaid state is determined; if not, the payment order is determined as in a paid state, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated. The order data record further includes the service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, by querying for a value of the service state field, repeated order payment can be prevented [i.e. before creating a second order of the first user] and whether the order has been paid can be determined quickly” [0059]), comprises:
-determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for (Han, see at least: “In a first payment mode, one of multiple users completes order payment independently … if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment. In the above manner, an order payment process can be completed by any one of a plurality of ordering users [i.e. determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that the first order has been paid for]” [0058]; Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted in light of paragraphs [0100]-[0109] of Applicant’s spec; Examiner notes that if all the items are designated as already paid for, then the order is not in a payable state); or
-determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for, wherein the second order of the first user can be created based on the order identifier of the first order in the occupied state when the first order is in the payable state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order [i.e. determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the first order is not paid for], and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058] and “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment [i.e. of the first user based]. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record [i.e. wherein the second order of the first user can be created based on the order identifier of the first order in the occupied state], the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code of the order data record respectively … the order data record further includes the service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, by querying for a value of the service state field [i.e. when the first order is in the payable state], repeated order payment can be prevented and whether the order has been paid can be determined quickly” [0059]; Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted in light of paragraphs [0100]-[0109] of Applicant’s spec)

Regarding claim 12, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 11. Han further discloses:
-sending, to the first user, a prompt message indicating that the first order has been paid for if it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request [i.e. sending, to the first user, a prompt message indicating that the first order has been paid for if it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state]” [0058]).

Regarding claim 13, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-wherein, before creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record, the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code [i.e. based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state] of the order data record respectively; according to a received payment request triggered for the payment order, payment is made for the payment order. In this manner, the payment order can be split into a plurality of payment sub-orders such that a plurality of ordering users can make payment respectively, thus helping to share the service resource cost among the plurality of ordering users … after each sub-order is paid according to a received sub-order payment request triggered for each payment sub-order, the following is further included: payment states of the respective payment sub-orders corresponding to the payment order are obtained; whether there is a payment sub-order in an unpaid state is determined; if not, the payment order is determined as in a paid state, and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated. The order data record further includes the service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, by querying for a value of the service state field, repeated order payment can be prevented [i.e. before creating a second order of the first user] and whether the order has been paid can be determined quickly” [0059]):
-determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that a transaction corresponding to the first order is in an unclosed state (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order [i.e. determining that the first order is in a payable state if it is determined that a transaction corresponding to the first order is in an unclosed state], and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]); or
-determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the transaction corresponding to the first order is in a closed state (Han, see at least: “In a first payment mode, one of multiple users completes order payment independently … if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment. In the above manner, an order payment process can be completed by any one of a plurality of ordering users [i.e. determining that the first order is not in the payable state if it is determined that the transaction corresponding to the first order is in a closed state]” [0058]).

Regarding claim 14, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 13.
Han does not disclose sending, to the first user, a prompt message indicating that the first order cannot be paid for if it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state.
Park, however, teaches a bill splitting system (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of sending, to the first user, a prompt message indicating that the first order cannot be paid for if it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state (Park, see at least: “as shown in FIGS. 12 to 14, when the bill splitting of the total payment amount is complete (all other payers pay the remaining amount), the payment server transmits and displays a message indicating that the payment has been completed [i.e. sending a prompt message indicating that the first order cannot be paid for if it is determined that the first order is not in the payable state] to the user terminal 100 [i.e. to the first user] that requests payment for the corresponding order information” [0096] and Fig. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Han with Park for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.

Regarding claim 16, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-setting the first order to a paid state after it is determined that a payment is successfully performed by the first user (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order … The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. setting the first order to a paid state after it is determined that a payment is successfully performed by the first user], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).

Claim 19 recite limitations directed towards non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations for payment (Han, see at least: “there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing at least one executable instruction, where the executable instruction causes a processor to perform operations corresponding to the above order management method based on multi-person ordering” [0025]). The limitations recited in claim 19 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.

Claim 20 recite limitations directed towards computer-implemented system for payment, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations (Han, see at least: “there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing at least one executable instruction, where the executable instruction causes a processor to perform operations corresponding to the above order management method based on multi-person ordering” [0025]). The limitations recited in claim 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.

Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Park, in further view of Biswas et al. (US 9,679,288 B2), hereinafter Biswas.
Regarding claim 4, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 3.
Han in view of Park does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after a predetermined waiting time interval if it is determined that the data row is locked; and determining that the first order is in the occupied state if the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after the predetermined waiting time interval.
Biswas, however, teaches purchasing a product (i.e. abstract), including the known techniques of wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after a predetermined waiting time interval if it is determined that the data row is locked (Biswas, see at least: “a reserved flag may be used to reserve a VIN or VIN / redemption code pair (or other identifier) so that the same information is not provided to a subsequent customer. While the terms ‘sold’ and ‘unsold’ are used, these terms are used as one example in the context of a commercial sale of a software product. For example, when the VIN is stored in a record, the server 210 may mark the record as reserved [i.e. wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked] and also associate the record with the customer's account, such as based on received customer account information. If a second customer then sends product information to the server, the server will not provide the same VIN as the record is marked as reserved. In some embodiments, the reserved flag may expire after a period of time, such as 30 minutes or 24 hours. Thus, the VIN may become unreserved if sufficient time elapses that the server determines that the customer elected to not purchase the product [i.e. after a predetermined waiting time interval if it is determined that the data row is locked]” Col. 12 Ln. 4-20 and “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7, each database record includes a redemption code, a VIN, a “reserved” flag, a “sold” flag, and an “activated” flag” Col. 11 Ln. 43-46; Examiner notes the row is locked when the VIN is marked as both reserved and sold, but it is unlocked when it is flagged as unreserved); and
determining that the first order is in the occupied state if the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after the predetermined waiting time interval (Biswas, see at least: “a reserved flag may be used to reserve a VIN or VIN / redemption code pair (or other identifier) so that the same information is not provided to a subsequent customer. While the terms ‘sold’ [i.e. determining that the first order is in the occupied state if the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked] and ‘unsold’ are used, these terms are used as one example in the context of a commercial sale of a software product. For example, when the VIN is stored in a record, the server 210 may mark the record as reserved and also associate the record with the customer's account, such as based on received customer account information. If a second customer then sends product information to the server, the server will not provide the same VIN as the record is marked as reserved. In some embodiments, the reserved flag may expire after a period of time, such as 30 minutes or 24 hours. Thus, the VIN may become unreserved if sufficient time elapses that the server determines that the customer elected to not purchase the product [i.e. after the predetermined waiting time interval]” Col. 12 Ln. 4-20 and “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7, each database record includes a redemption code, a VIN, a “reserved” flag, a “sold” flag, and an “activated” flag” Col. 11 Ln. 43-46; Examiner notes the row is locked when the VIN is marked as both reserved and sold, but it is unlocked when it is flagged as unreserved). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a purchasing a product.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after a predetermined waiting time interval if it is determined that the data row is locked; and determining that the first order is in the occupied state if the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after the predetermined waiting time interval, as taught by Biswas, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after a predetermined waiting time interval if it is determined that the data row is locked; and determining that the first order is in the occupied state if the data row, in the database, that the first order is located in is locked after the predetermined waiting time interval, as taught by Biswas, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would more easily and efficiently provide a wide variety of products to customers (Biswas, Col. 3 Ln. 30-32).

Regarding claim 9, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
-wherein, creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order in the occupied state (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment [i.e. of the first user]. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record [i.e. creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order], the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code of the order data record respectively” [0059] and “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order … if yes, the payment request is rejected [i.e. the first order in the occupied state] and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. the first order in the occupied state], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058])):
-wherein creating a second order of the first user based on the order identifier of the first order in the occupied state can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process (Han, see at least: “a plurality of users cooperatively complete order payment [i.e. of the first user based]. Specifically, according to a number of user identifiers included in the order identifier code of the order data record [i.e. creating a second order of the first user based on an order identifier of the first order], the payment order is split into a plurality of payment sub-orders, where a total of order mounts of the payment sub-orders is matched with the order amount of the payment order; each payment sub-order is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to each user identifier included in the order identifier code of the order data record respectively” [0059] and “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment. Correspondingly, the payment order may be paid specifically in the following manner according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order: when the payment request triggered for the payment order is received, whether the payment order corresponding to the order data record is already paid is determined according to a service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order; if not, payment is made for the payment order according to the received payment request triggered for the payment order [i.e. can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process], and the service state field included in the order data record corresponding to the payment order is updated according to a payment result; if yes, the payment request is rejected [i.e. the first order in the occupied state] and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid [i.e. the first order in the occupied state], and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).
Han in view of Park does not explicitly teach before creating a second order: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-payable time point; and determining that the first order is not in a payment process if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-payable time point.
Biswas, however, teaches purchasing a product (i.e. abstract), including the known techniques of, before creating a second order: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-payable time point (Biswas, see at least: “a reserved flag may be used to reserve a VIN or VIN / redemption code pair (or other identifier) so that the same information is not provided to a subsequent customer. While the terms ‘sold’ and ‘unsold’ are used, these terms are used as one example in the context of a commercial sale of a software product. For example, when the VIN is stored in a record, the server 210 may mark the record as reserved and also associate the record with the customer's account, such as based on received customer account information. If a second customer then sends product information to the server, the server will not provide the same VIN as the record is marked as reserved [i.e. wherein, before creating a second order:]. In some embodiments, the reserved flag may expire after a period of time, such as 30 minutes or 24 hours [i.e. determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-payable time point]. Thus, the VIN may become unreserved if sufficient time elapses that the server determines that the customer elected to not purchase the product” Col. 12 Ln. 4-20); and
the known techniques of, before creating a second order: determining that the first order is not in a payment process if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-payable time point, wherein creating a second order can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process (Biswas, see at least: “a reserved flag may be used to reserve a VIN or VIN / redemption code pair (or other identifier) so that the same information is not provided to a subsequent customer. While the terms ‘sold’ and ‘unsold’ are used, these terms are used as one example in the context of a commercial sale of a software product. For example, when the VIN is stored in a record, the server 210 may mark the record as reserved and also associate the record with the customer's account, such as based on received customer account information. If a second customer then sends product information to the server, the server will not provide the same VIN as the record is marked as reserved [i.e. wherein creating a second order can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process]. In some embodiments, the reserved flag may expire after a period of time, such as 30 minutes or 24 hours [i.e. determining that the first order is not in a payment process if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-payable time point]. Thus, the VIN may become unreserved if sufficient time elapses that the server determines that the customer elected to not purchase the product” Col. 12 Ln. 4-20. These known techniques are applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a purchasing a product.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of before creating a second order: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-payable time point; and determining that the first order is not in a payment process if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-payable time point, wherein creating a second order can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process, as taught by Biswas, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of before creating a second order: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-payable time point; and determining that the first order is not in a payment process if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-payable time point, wherein creating a second order can be performed when the first order is not in the payment process, as taught by Biswas, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would more easily and efficiently provide a wide variety of products to customers (Biswas, Col. 3 Ln. 30-32).

Regarding claim 10, the combination of Han/Park/Biswas teaches the method of claim 9. Han further discloses:
-sending, to the first user, prompt information indicating that the first order is being paid for (Han, see at least: “since any one of the plurality of ordering users can make order payment, conflict detection is needed so as to prevent repeated payment … if yes, the payment request is rejected and a notification indicating that payment is already made is pushed to a user terminal corresponding to the payment request [i.e. sending, to the first user, prompt information indicating that the first order is being paid for]. The order data record further includes a service state field indicating whether a service resource corresponding to the order is paid, and correspondingly, repeated payment can be prevented by querying for a value of the service state field, so as to ensure only one of the plurality of users can successfully make payment” [0058]).
Han in view of Park does not teach determining that the first order is in the payment process if it is determined that the current time point is earlier than the non-payable time point.
Biswas, however, teaches purchasing a product (i.e. abstract), including the known techniques of determining that the first order is in the payment process if it is determined that the current time point is earlier than the non-payable time point (Biswas, see at least: “a reserved flag may be used to reserve a VIN or VIN / redemption code pair (or other identifier) so that the same information is not provided to a subsequent customer. While the terms ‘sold’ and ‘unsold’ are used, these terms are used as one example in the context of a commercial sale of a software product. For example, when the VIN is stored in a record, the server 210 may mark the record as reserved [i.e. determining that the first order is in the payment process] and also associate the record with the customer's account, such as based on received customer account information. If a second customer then sends product information to the server, the server will not provide the same VIN as the record is marked as reserved. In some embodiments, the reserved flag may expire after a period of time, such as 30 minutes or 24 hours [i.e. if it is determined that the current time point is earlier than the non-payable time point]. Thus, the VIN may become unreserved if sufficient time elapses that the server determines that the customer elected to not purchase the product” Col. 12 Ln. 4-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Han in view of Park with Biswas for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 9.

Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Park, in further view of Miles et al. (US 11,176,240 B1), hereinafter Miles.
Regarding claim 5, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 2.
Han in view of Park does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-occupiable time point, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that is set when a payment instruction is received at a previous time; and determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-occupiable time point.
Miles, however, teaches storing a set of records (i.e. abstract), including the known techniques of wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-occupiable time point, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that is set when a payment instruction is received at a previous time (Miles, see at least: “one or more of the foregoing memory areas or records may be configured such that one or more operations that would impact the memory areas or records are temporarily disabled (e.g., disabled for a fixed time period [i.e. determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-occupiable time point], disabled while one or more temporary conditions are determined to be present, etc.). In one use case, when a first set of operations related to a first transaction (e.g., involving a set of records) is in progress or has been initiated [i.e. wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that is set when a payment instruction is received at a previous time], a second set of operations related to a second transaction will be paused or prevented from being performed [i.e. wherein determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises:] (e.g., to the extent that the set of operations involve one or more records of the same set of records) at least until the first set of operations are completed” Col. 8 Ln. 40-52); and
determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-occupiable time point (Miles, see at least: “one or more of the foregoing memory areas or records may be configured such that one or more operations that would impact the memory areas or records are temporarily disabled (e.g., disabled for a fixed time period [i.e. if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-occupiable time point], disabled while one or more temporary conditions are determined to be present, etc.). In one use case, when a first set of operations related to a first transaction (e.g., involving a set of records) is in progress or has been initiated [i.e. determining that the first order is not in the occupied state], a second set of operations related to a second transaction will be paused or prevented from being performed (e.g., to the extent that the set of operations involve one or more records of the same set of records) at least until the first set of operations are completed” Col. 8 Ln. 40-52). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to storing a set of records.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-occupiable time point, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that is set when a payment instruction is received at a previous time; and determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-occupiable time point, as taught by Miles, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of determining whether the first order is in the occupied state, comprises: determining whether a current time point is earlier than a non-occupiable time point, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that is set when a payment instruction is received at a previous time; and determining that the first order is not in the occupied state if it is determined that the current time point is not earlier than the non-occupiable time point, as taught by Miles, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would prevent unauthorized access (Miles, Col. 1 Ln. 24-25).

Regarding claim 8, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
Han in view of Park does not teach wherein setting the first order to an occupied state, comprises: setting a non-occupiable time point to a sum of a current time point and a predetermined non-occupiable time parameter, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that a payment instruction of a user other than the first user can be executed at.
Miles, however, teaches storing a set of records (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of setting the first order to an occupied state, comprising: setting a non-occupiable time point to a sum of a current time point and a predetermined non-occupiable time parameter, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that a payment instruction of a user other than the first user can be executed at (Miles, see at least: “one or more of the foregoing memory areas or records may be configured such that one or more operations that would impact the memory areas or records are temporarily disabled [i.e. wherein setting the first order to an occupied state, comprises:] (e.g., disabled for a fixed time period [i.e. setting a non-occupiable time point to a sum of a current time point and a predetermined non-occupiable time parameter], disabled while one or more temporary conditions are determined to be present, etc.). In one use case, when a first set of operations related to a first transaction (e.g., involving a set of records) is in progress or has been initiated, a second set of operations related to a second transaction [i.e. the first order] will be paused or prevented from being performed (e.g., to the extent that the set of operations involve one or more records of the same set of records) at least until the first set of operations are completed [i.e. wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that a payment instruction of a user other than the first user can be executed at]” Col. 8 Ln. 40-52). This known technique is applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to storing a set of records.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of setting the first order to an occupied state, comprising: setting a non-occupiable time point to a sum of a current time point and a predetermined non-occupiable time parameter, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that a payment instruction of a user other than the first user can be executed at, as taught by Miles, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of setting the first order to an occupied state, comprising: setting a non-occupiable time point to a sum of a current time point and a predetermined non-occupiable time parameter, wherein the non-occupiable time point is used to represent a time point that a payment instruction of a user other than the first user can be executed at, as taught by Miles, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would prevent unauthorized access (Miles, Col. 1 Ln. 24-25).

Claims 18 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Park, in further view of Chin et al. (US 9,875,469 B1), hereinafter Chin.
Regarding claim 15, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1.
Han in view of Park does not teach performing a payment operation based on the second order, comprises: sending a payment code of the second order to a unified payment platform, wherein the unified payment platform can generate payment redirect page address information based on the payment code of the second order and payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code, and send the payment redirect page address information to the application, so that the first user performs the payment operation in a payment interface popped up by the application based on the payment redirect page address information.
Chin, however, teaches splitting a bill (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of performing a payment operation based on the second order, comprising: sending a payment code of the second order to a unified payment platform, wherein the unified payment platform can generate payment redirect page address information based on the payment code of the second order and payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code, and send the payment redirect page address information to the application, so that the first user performs the payment operation in a payment interface popped up by the application based on the payment redirect page address information (Chin, see at least: “the representation 206 includes information on how to communicate with a merchant device, and an identifier of the transaction. For example, the representation 206 can include an encoded link to a Web site of the merchant [i.e. wherein the unified payment platform can generate payment redirect page address information based on the payment code of the second order and payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code], or encoded information on accessing a wireless network of the merchant. Using this information, and the identifier of the transaction, the customer device 102a can connect to the merchant device and retrieve details of the bill wirelessly. The customer device 102a can display the details and pay for a portion of the bill [i.e. and send the payment redirect page address information to the application, so that the first user performs the payment operation in a payment interface popped up by the application based on the payment redirect page address information], as described below in reference to FIG. 4” Col. 5 Ln. 8-18 and “The representation 206 can be a barcode that can be scanned by a customer device. In various implementations, the representation 206 can be a one-dimensional or two-dimensional bar code, e.g., a quick response (QR™) code [i.e. payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code]” Col. 4 Ln. 31-35 and “A second mobile device, e.g., customer device 102b of FIG. 2, then scans the bill and submits a second request, after the first request by the first customer device, for detailed bill information to the merchant device [i.e. wherein performing a payment operation based on the second order, comprises: sending a payment code of the second order to a unified payment platform]. The merchant device receives (908), from the second mobile device, the second request for payment information. The second request includes the identifier of the transaction as included in the first request” Col. 10 Ln. 4-11 and Fig. 3 shows interfaces of the e-wallet app used to scan the QR code). This known technique is applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to splitting a bill.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of performing a payment operation based on the second order, comprising: sending a payment code of the second order to a unified payment platform, wherein the unified payment platform can generate payment redirect page address information based on the payment code of the second order and payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code, and send the payment redirect page address information to the application, so that the first user performs the payment operation in a payment interface popped up by the application based on the payment redirect page address information, as taught by Chin, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of performing a payment operation based on the second order, comprising: sending a payment code of the second order to a unified payment platform, wherein the unified payment platform can generate payment redirect page address information based on the payment code of the second order and payment platform information of an application used by the first user to scan the order QR code, and send the payment redirect page address information to the application, so that the first user performs the payment operation in a payment interface popped up by the application based on the payment redirect page address information, as taught by Chin, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would retrieve details of the bill wirelessly (Chin, Col. 5 Ln. 15-16).

Regarding claim 18, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1. Han further discloses:
Han in view of Park does not teach the order identifier of the first order has a mapping relationship with an order identifier of the second order.
Chin, however, teaches splitting a bill (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the order identifier of the first order has a mapping relationship with an order identifier of the second order (Chin, see at least: “the bill can include an identifier of the transaction [i.e. wherein the order identifier of the first order]. The identifier can be encoded as two-dimensional barcode” Col. 9 Ln. 13-15 and “A second mobile device, e.g., customer device 102b of FIG. 2, then scans the bill and submits a second request, after the first request by the first customer device, for detailed bill information to the merchant device. The merchant device receives (908), from the second mobile device, the second request for payment information. The second request includes the identifier of the transaction as included in the first request [i.e. has a mapping relationship with an order identifier of the second order]” Col. 10 Ln. 4-11). This known technique is applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to splitting a bill.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the order identifier of the first order has a mapping relationship with an order identifier of the second order, as taught by Chin, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of the order identifier of the first order has a mapping relationship with an order identifier of the second order, as taught by Chin, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would retrieve details of the bill wirelessly (Chin, Col. 5 Ln. 15-16).

Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Park, in further view of Kido et al. (US 2012/0238367 A1), hereinafter Kido.
Regarding claim 17, Han in view of Park teaches the method of claim 1.
Han in view of Park does not teach obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point that the first user cancels the payment operation at if it is determined that the first user cancels the payment operation; and setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point.
Kido, however, teaches an item exchange (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point that the first user cancels the payment operation at if it is determined that the first user cancels the payment operation (Kido, see at least: “When Hanako who saw the exchange proposal message or Taro who saw the exchange accepting message clicks on a "cancel" button [i.e. obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point that the first user cancels the payment operation at if it is determined that the first user cancels the payment operation] on the "item exchange screen", the system performs information processing to cancel the exchange transaction, similarly to the case of the above-mentioned "time expired", and enables sending it to the other party” [0045] and “the system measures the elapsed time [i.e. obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point] since the exchange proposal message of the transaction number 1 from Taro to Hanako has been created” [0044]); and
the known technique of setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point (Kido, see at least: “When Hanako who saw the exchange proposal message or Taro who saw the exchange accepting message clicks on a "cancel" button on the "item exchange screen", the system performs information processing to cancel the exchange transaction, [i.e. setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point] similarly to the case of the above-mentioned "time expired", and enables sending it to the other party” [0045] and “the system measures the elapsed time since the exchange proposal message of the transaction number 1 from Taro to Hanako has been created, and when the transaction is not made even if the predetermined time has passed, the system sets the status flags of the exchange transaction record of the transaction number 1 to "time expired" [i.e. if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point], and records that the transaction has been canceled as the item management information of Taro and Hanako, which enables sending Taro and Hanako, thereby inhibiting the above "item exchange screen" from being displayed” [0044] Examiner notes that the “cancel button” is only displayed before the time expires [i.e. if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point] and pressing the “cancel button” causes the same screen to be displayed as the time expiring [i.e. setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Han in view of Park as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an item exchange.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point that the first user cancels the payment operation at if it is determined that the first user cancels the payment operation; and setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point, as taught by Kido, to the teachings of Han in view of Park would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of obtaining a corresponding cancelation time point that the first user cancels the payment operation at if it is determined that the first user cancels the payment operation; and setting a non-payable time point to the corresponding cancelation time point if it is determined that the corresponding cancelation time point is earlier than the non-payable time point, as taught by Kido, into the method of Han in view of Park would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow a user to cancel a transaction (Kido, [0045]).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Bantanur et al. (US 2023/0067467 A1) teaches a multi-party transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.

/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689

Prosecution Timeline

• Dec 26, 2023: Application Filed
• Dec 23, 2025: Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112
• Apr 09, 2026: Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
• Apr 09, 2026: Examiner Interview Summary