DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19 are currently amended.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amounts to at least an improvement in a group notification system for a select group of mobile devices for dynamically distributing a charge among a group of individuals. When one mobile device makes a change for a group charge, the other mobile devices are notified an updated amount assigned to a particular individual. (response at 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, notifying group members of dynamically distributing charge among group members amounts to fundamental economic practice.
Applicant further argues the claims are analogous to command and control aspects of Example 25. Specially “claim 1 recites "transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a group notification to an application executed on a plurality of client devices associated with the group of members, the plurality of client devices comprising the first client device and a second client device, the group notification being accessible on a website, the application being loaded on the plurality of client devices to receive the group notification."”(Response at 20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, transmitting group notification amounts to mere instruction to apply the exception to a computer environment. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea” (See MPEP2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant further argues the claims have additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in the field of group notification systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the argued elements represent either fundamental economic practice and are abstract or mere instruction to apply the exception, as discussed above.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive.
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 1-19, and 21 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.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Claim 1 recites “split group charges” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a split group charges
Claim 1 A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing device, a request to establish a group of members from a group initiator associated with a first client device;
generating, by the at least one computing device, the group of members based at least in part on a list of members from the request, the group of members having a shared financial obligation for at least one charge added by a group member;
transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a group notification to an application executed on a plurality of client devices associated with the group of members, the plurality of client devices comprising the first client device and a second client device, the group notification being accessible on a website, the application being loaded on the plurality of client devices to receive the group notification;
identifying, by the at least one computing device, a charge to be included to the shared financial obligation based at least in part on a first selection by the group initiator on the website by the first client device;
determining, by the at least one computing device, a portion of the shared financial obligation to assign to a second member of the group of members based at least in part on the inclusion of the first charge to the shared financial obligation and a total amount owed for the shared financial obligation;
transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a first notification of the portion of the shared financial obligation to the second client device in response to the determination of the portion of the shared financial obligation, the first notification being accessible on the website;
identifying, by the at least one computing device, the portion of the shared financial obligation being not acceptable to the second client device of the group of members;
determining, by the at least one computing device, an updated portion of the shared financial obligation assigned to the second member of the group of members based at least in part on the inclusion of the portion of the shared financial obligation being not acceptable to the second client device of the group of members;
transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a second notification of the updated portion of the shared financial obligation to the second client device in response to the determination of the updated portion of the shared financial obligation, the second notification being accessible on the website;
determining, by the at least one computing device, that at least a group portion of the group members have accepted the updated portion of the shared financial obligation based at least in part on input from the plurality of client devices for the group members,
updating, by the at least one computing device, a transaction history for the shared financial obligation at a database, wherein the transaction history is accessible on the website to the plurality of client devices associated with the group of members;
deleting, by the at least one computing device, data associated with the shared financial obligation in response to a completed settlement of the shared financial obligation.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “…at least one computing device…”, “…a first client device …” “transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a group notification to an application executed on a plurality of client devices associated with the group of members, the plurality of client devices comprising the first client device and a second client device, the group notification being accessible on a website, the application being loaded on the plurality of client devices to receive the group notification”, ”, “…the website …”, “…the second client device”, “…the website to the plurality of client devices associated with the group of members”, “deleting, by the at least one computing device, data associated with the shared financial obligation in response to a completed settlement of the shared financial obligation.” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of split group charges.
And, as the additional element does no more than provide a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-19 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 5, recites the additional elements of “, by the at least one computing device” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claims 6, 12 and 21 recites the additional elements of “, by the at least one computing device”, and “third client device” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, 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.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Gupta (US 2013/0411824 A1) Teaches: method of aggregating split payments using a settlement ecosystem.
Melby et al. (US 2012/0173396 A1) Teaches: Bill division and group payment method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights