Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on 4/14/2026. Claims 1, 4,5, 6,7,8, 9,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim 12 is drawn to a system, and claim(s) 19 is drawn to computer program product. As such, claims 1, 13, and 17 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One. Claim 1 recites limitations directed to organizing and managing human activity including: creating a group, inviting participants, receiving acceptance decisions, authenticating participants, collecting funds from participants, and transferring funds to a merchant. These activities form certain methods or organizing human activity, including commercial interactions, financial transactions and interpersonal coordination, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Furthermore, the claim recites mental processes because the limitations involve evaluating invitation responses, determining whether authentication is successful and selecting payment transaction types, which are concepts that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. For example, a human organizer could invite nearby individuals, verify identities, determine who may join the group, collect funds and pay a merchant. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional elements relating to displacing invitations, tracking locations, sending notifications, collecting feedback and providing transaction confirmations, all of which are part of the abstract idea or organizing h and managing group activities and payments.
Step 2A, Prong Two. The additional elements recited int eh claims including group management circuitry, communication hardware, identity verification circuitry, organizer geolocation circuitry and user interface circuitry, are recited at a high level of generality and simply perform generic computer functions such as receiving data, transmitting data storing information, processing information, authenticating users, and executing transactions. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer technology, network technology, geolocation technology, authentication technology, or payment processing technology. Instead, the claims use generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. The use of a mobile driver’s license(mDL) for authentication does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims merely use the mDL as data for identity verification. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to how mDLs operate, are generated, are secure or are cryptographically processed. Similarly, geolocation limitations simply is conventional location information to determine which users receive invitations. Using geographic criteria to select participants in a business and organizational practice and does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. The claims do not recite any particular machine that is integral to the claim. The recited circuitry and hardware are described generically and are used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The claims simply use generic technology to automate human activities and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B. The additional elements individually or in combination, merely recite generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities such as: transmitting information, receiving responses, authenticating users, processing payments, tracking locations, displaying information and storing data. The specification describes the claimed hardware components generically and indicates that conventional processors, memory, communication hardware and user interface may be used to perform the recited functions. The ordered combination of elements also does not amount to significantly more because eh claims simply automate conventional group organization and payment collection activities using generic computer technology. The clams do not recite any unconventional technical solution or any technological improvement beyond the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Accordingly, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant chose not to argue Prong One (is there an Abstract idea) and said would address it later. The examiner notes this. The rejection stands that these claims are about organizing a group of people and handling a payment which people have done for a very long time, just now done on a phone or computer.
Argument 1. The claims define when, how and under what conditions the transaction happens.
Describing the order of steps or conditions for doing something does not make the claim patent eligible. For example, if someone claimed ‘a method of splitting a dinner bill: first confirm who is at the table, then verify each person’s ID, then collect their share, then pay the restaurant”. Adding those steps does not make the idea less abstract. This is essentially what the current claims do, just using phones and circuitry language. Furthermore, terms like “group management circuitry” and “identity verification circuitry” are just labels that describe what something does, not how it actually works technically.
Argument 2. The claims solve real problems with existing payment systems.
Applicant describes two problems with the current system, first, everyone pays separately or the second, one person pays for everyone and hopes to get paid back. Applicant says the claims fix this by combining everyone’s payment into one. The examiner points out the following:
First, those are people problems and money problems, not computer or technology problems. The splitting of a bill has nothing to do with how payment networks or computers are built. Comparing these claims with claims that actually improved how a database or network functions is not a fair comparison.
Second, the claims only say that transactions are consolidated, and never explain how that consolidation technically works. Saying “combining multiple payments into one” without explaining the technical method for doing so.
Third, the benefit that applicant describes which is less time, fewer errors, better experience come from the written description of the patent, not from the claims themselves. Patent eligibility is based on what the claims actually say, and not what the specification hopes the invention will achieve.
Argument 3: The claims reduce computational load by combining transaction.
Doing something more efficiently, even on a computer, does not automatically make it patent eligible. The claims do not describe any specific technical way to reduce computational load. There is no new algorithm, no improved protocol, no novel network architecture recited. The idea that combining group payments saves servers resources is a logical guess, not a claimed technical feature.
Argument 4: Using mobile driver’s license (mDL) improves security.
A mobile driver’s license is an already existing type of official legal document to prove identity. The claims simply say “use an mDL), they do not claim any new or improved way of using the mDL. The claims do not solve any known technical problem with the mDL authentication. Picking a known tool and using it in the normal way it was designed to be used is not a technical improvement.
Argument 5: The circuitry components make this a specific machine.
For a “particular machine” argument to work, the machine has to be described in enough detail that it actually limits what the claim covers. Here, every circuitry element is defined only by what it does, not what it is or how it is built. “Identity verification circuitry” could be anything that verifies identity. “Payment processing circuitry” could be anything that processes payments. These are just renamed versions of abstract steps; they do not add any real technical content.
Argument 5, on step 2B. The applicant argues that because the prior art does not show this exact combination of features, the claims must be more than abstract.
This mixes up two different legal questions. Novelty (102/103) asks has anyone done this before. Eligibility (101), askes is this the kind of thing that can be patented at all. The Court has clearly said that these are separate questions. Something can be new and still not be patent eligible if it is just a new way of doing something abstract. Each element in these claims, such as geolocation, authentication, payment collection, transfer to a merchant is well known, commonly used technology being applied in a straightforward way. Using a combination of ordinary technologies to perform an abstract idea does not make the idea patent eligible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights