DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 3/26/2026. Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 17 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 § 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a device, claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claim 17 is directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers, which is a commercial or legal interaction, i.e. sales behaviors, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, bolded below and stripped of additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
providing, to a subscriber to communication services, an interface, the interface accessible over a communication network, the subscriber associated with a subscription account for the communication services;
receiving, from the interface, information defining (1) a first payment group comprising a first designated payer and a non-payer and (2) a second payment group comprising a second designated payer,
wherein each of the first designated payer, the non-payer, and the second designated payer are associated with the subscription account for the communication services,
communicating to the interface, a visual indication of a first designated amount due for payment to the subscription account for the communication services attributed to the first payment group and a second designated amount due for payment to the subscription account for the communication services attributed to the second payment group;
communicating, to a first user device associated with the first designated payer, a communication indicating the first designated amount due and a first payment mechanism,
wherein the first payment mechanism comprises a tokenized link that embeds information identifying the subscription account and facilitates unauthenticated access to a payment website;
communicating, to a second user device associated with the second designated payer, a communication indicating the second designated amount due and a second payment mechanism;
receiving, from the first user device, an authorization of payment of the first designated amount due via the payment website; and crediting the subscription account according to the authorization of payment of the first designated amount due.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “a processing system including a processor”, “a memory that stores executable instructions”, an “interface accessible over a communication network”, a first user “device”, “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website, and a second user “device” in claim 1, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor”, a subscriber “device”, a “device” of each of the designated payers and “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website, in claim 11 and “a processing system including a processor” and “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website in claim 17, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as do claims 11 and 17.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the abstract idea steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory and displays suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIGs 1 and 2 and paragraphs [0020-0027], [0035], “A smartphone is one example of a user device that may be used to enroll in a payment sharing system. Any other suitable device may be used by a user for access, including a desktop computer and a tablet computer, for example.”, [0036], “The make a payment button 212 corresponds to a hyperlink that activates a process in the user device to display a bill payment page for interaction by the subscriber. The bill payment page allows the subscriber to make a payment to be credited to the subscription account of the subscriber with the service provider. The split your bill section 214 includes a hyperlink to take the subscriber to a page such as display 210b.”, a hyperlink is a well-known and understood computer element representing an address of a website within the Internet, [0090-0091] and [0117-0120] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as are claims 11 and 17.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible and neither are claims 11 and 17.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2, 5, 19 and 20 further refine the abstract idea of paying via the Internet. The additional elements are a user device, a payment link, i.e. a hyperlink leading to an Internet address for a webpage and a payment confirmation link. The abstract idea steps are communicating an amount due from a payer, i.e. a bill or invoice, receiving account information from said payer, confirming which prompts payment for the amount due and confirming authorization of payment. This is applying the abstract idea steps on generic computing elements leveraged at a very high level of generality in a most conventional manner. This is made clear by Applicant’s specification in at least paragraphs [0065], “The web browser application on the user device may be redirected the to a universal resource locator (URL) which the network operator has designated for a payment web page. Further, clicking the link may direct the web browser application the payment web page which does not require authentication steps such as providing a wireless number and password.” and [0066-0067]. Claims 3 and 4 further refine the abstract idea by merely communicating a confirmation of receipt of the payment authorization for the amount due and receiving a second authorized amount for payment from a second individual which is credited to the account. This is an abstract idea applied on a generic user device. Claims 6 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by receiving information identifying group information associated with the subscription account along with their cell numbers. This is merely gathering information to be used in the abstract idea. Claim 7 further refines the abstract idea by defining the subscriber involved in the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 12 further refine the abstract idea by merely receiving information to be used in the abstract idea for removing or adding users to the payment group. This is an abstract idea of itself as it is merely organizing intangible information applied on a generic device. Claims 9 and 10 further refine the abstract idea by reciting the first and second amounts due and that the amounts are due are equal amounts which is further refining the abstract idea. Claims 13 further refines the abstract idea by receiving grouping information which defines the respective amounts due. Claim 14 further refines the abstract idea by determining a payment status and providing this information to the subscriber. Claims 15 and 16 recite the additional element of an interface displayed on the display of a generic computing device which is merely a display on a generic computer screen for gathering abstract idea information/data in a most conventional manner. The interface does not improve any underlying technology but is merely leveraged at a very high level of generality for gathering information.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed for receiving, displaying and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
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 or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20, filed in the Remarks of 3/26/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1, as amended, should not be characterized as merely reciting an abstract idea, such as "processing payments" or "splitting a bill." The claim now expressly requires a "tokenized link" that embeds subscription-account identifying information and that "facilitates unauthenticated access" to a payment website. These limitations are directed to the technical manner in which a networked system initiates access to an online payment interface, i.e., via a tokenized link that carries account-identifying information and enables access without requiring conventional user authentication.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “tokenized link” with embedded account information providing access to a payment website is an additional element outside of the abstract idea language. The abstract idea is for split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers which can be completed in a myriad of ways. Applicant has automated the abstract idea via the Internet.
On pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks, Applicant agues “Claim 1, as amended, also satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two because the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the added limitation requires a specific access-control and session-initiation technique that comprises using a tokenized link embedding subscription-account identifying information to facilitate unauthenticated access to a payment website. Thus, the claimed payment interaction is implemented in a particular technological manner. The tokenized-link mechanism meaningfully limits the claim to a specific network-based solution for initiating a payment process. By enabling unauthenticated access through a tokenized link, the claim addresses practical constraints of networked payment workflows (e.g., avoiding inconvenient credential entry and conventional authentication interactions while still securely associating the payer with the correct subscription account).” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Providing a “tokenized link” embedded with account information which, when selected, take the user to a payment website on the Internet is merely automating a previous manual operation. Furthermore, there are no technical implementation details to suggest that this is anything other than what is already well-known in online payments. This is made clear in Barman, US 11,158,009 B2, filed May 19, 2020, at least Abstract “A unique URL may be created that when entered into a web browser presents a webpage that includes at least the restaurant bill data. The unique URL may be used by the customer to pay the restaurant bill.”
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the update MPEP, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. At best these features may be considered to be a business solution, using computers, to a problem of split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers. The alleged benefits that Applicants argue are due to business decisions, using computers, rather than any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 “use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “a processing system including a processor”, “a memory that stores executable instructions”, an “interface accessible over a communication network”, a first user “device”, “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website, and a second user “device” in claim 1, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor”, a subscriber “device”, a “device” of each of the designated payers and “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website, in claim 11 and “a processing system including a processor” and “a tokenized link”, i.e. URL to an Internet address website in claim 17 are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants argue do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in split payment group billing and payment account crediting for identified payers, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights