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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the previous 10/01/2025 non-final rejection. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s original 12/31/2025 remarks.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
This action is final, necessitated by Applicant amendment.
Withdrawn Objections
The drawings are objected to for issues pertaining to greyscale imaging are withdrawn in view of the drawings received 12/31/2025.
Withdrawn Rejections
The double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments received 12/31/2025.
Claim Rejections
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the following prior art1:
US 20150356548 A1 (Luna)
US 20130031001 A1 (Frechette)
US 20160379201 A1 (Sabet)
US 20130085931 A1 (Runyan)
US 20180165661 A1 (Macht)
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) in view of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 failing to satisfy the written description requirement, specifically with respect to the claim limitations2 “comparing, by the server, each potential payee of the gratuity that is associated with each of the one or more mobile devices with information associated with a potential payor, wherein the information comprises a payor type of the potential payor; determining, by the server, that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that (a) the at least one potential payee is associated with a merchant in the proximity of the first mobile device and (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor;”.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection3.
Examiner’s Note – Prosecution History
Examiner acknowledges the PTAB decision of parent application 16/014,899 received 7/8/2024 and notes the PTAB’s rationales for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 still likely apply to the instant claims received 12/31/20254. Accordingly, no 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection has been applied to the instant claims.
Examiner’s Note – Suggestion
Examiner notes that claim 17 recites: “A system … comprising … processors configured to perform operations comprising: … identifying, by the server…”. While not necessarily indefinite, Examiner respectfully submits that more clearly delineating the “server” as an element of the “system” may improve the saliency of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Examiner’s Note – Claim Interpretation
Examiner takes the position that, based on (a) Applicant’s response received 12/31/2025 and (b) ¶¶15, 29 of Applicant specification, that it appears the newly amended claim limitations:5 “determining, by the server, that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that (a) the at least one potential payee is associated with a merchant in the proximity of the first mobile device and (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor;” introduced in the 12/31/2025 amendments were intended by Applicant to refer to a preliminary determination step of which profiles to display on the device, where the profiles corresponding to (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor; generally corresponds to nearby friends that are also consumers (i.e., payors), but mistakenly characterizing them as payees of a gratuity. See at least ¶¶15, 29, and Applicant Remarks:
¶¶15, 29, 30 of Applicant Specification, underline emphasis added: [15]“…The user associated with the mobile device may be a first user having a first type, one or more of the identified potential payees may be users having a distinct second type, and determining the at least one appropriate potential payee may include determining, based at least in part on the first user being of the first type, that the one or more users of the distinct second type are appropriate potential payees with respect to the first user. The initiating of the payment from the user to the one or more selected payees may include initiating a notification to each of the one or more selected payees of the initiated payment. Receiving the indication that the mobile device is within the defined proximity may be based at least in part on the mobile device entering a defined geographic area associated with at least one of the one or more identified potential payees. … [29] At the restaurant, Helen joins two friends and is seated at a table …. Helen again consults the MPF application executing on her mobile device, and is presented with a listing of nearby potential payees that includes a photographic representation of one of her two friends, as well as a photographic representation of her waiter and an indication that he works at the restaurant. … [0030] …Helen then selects the entries displayed corresponding to her two friends Brian and Sam, indicates a percentage tip to include for the waiter, and selects the control presented by the MPF application to initiate payments from each of the three friends in order to split the bill. Brian and Sam each affirm the payment via a notification presented by the MPF system on their own respective mobile devices. The MPF system initiates a first payment to the restaurant's point-of-sale terminal for the itemized order and a second payment to an account of the waiter according to the percentage tip specified by Helen. The waiter and restaurant point-of-sale terminal each receive a notification that the table's order has been paid, and Helen, Brian and Sam exit the restaurant without waiting for a receipt, which has already been sent to their respective electronic addresses by the MPF system.”
Applicant Remarks received 12/21/2025 (page 10)6: “As amended, the claim recites that the information associated with the potential payor comprises a payor type. In particular, while Luna discusses a type of worker (e.g., the purported payee) that receives gratuity ([110]), Luna does not disclose a type of consumer (e.g., the … payor). Furthermore, Luna does not disclose determining that a potential payee is an appropriate potential payee based on a determination that a payee type is associated with the payor type…”
Given the above, noting nothing in the independent claims expressly recites a “consumer”, Examiner takes the position that Applicant likely intended the newly amended claim limitations to refer to the functionality referred to in ¶29, but further notes Applicant does not have written support for the amended claim limitations, as the claim limitations do not match ¶¶15, 29, 30, as explained further below in the 112(a) written description rejections.
As a general note, examiner takes the position that the disclosed friends of ¶¶29 30 are not payees of a gratuity, as they are not paid a gratuity – they are, if anything, payors of a gratuity (e.g., a consumer), as indicated in ¶30 – of which logically flows from the same scenario outlined in ¶29. Examiner acknowledges ¶29 of Applicant specification stating “…Helen … is presented with a listing of nearby potential payees that includes a photographic representation of one or her two friends…”, but there is nothing in Applicant’s specification indicating the friends splitting the bill as appropriate potential payees (i.e., recipients) of a gratuity; rather, they are only understood to correspond to payors. Accordingly, it appears Applicant’s claim amendment (e.g., “determining, by the server, that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that … (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor;”) introduced in the 12/31/2025 amendments were intended by Applicant to refer to a preliminary determination step of which profiles to display on the device, where the profiles corresponding to (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor may have confused the terms payee with payor, given the disclosure of ¶29. Lastly, examiner respectfully submits Applicant’s disclosure does not at all logically associate any of the disclosure of ¶15 to any of the disclosure of ¶¶29,30.
For purposes of compact prosecution of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the examiner is interpreting the newly amended claim limitations as generally corresponding to an embodiment where other payors (e.g., analogous to ¶¶29,30 of Applicant specification) are determined to be displayed / presented to the user (i.e., the examiner’s best attempt at understanding what Applicant intended the claim limitations to correspond to).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite (underline emphasis added):
“ …
comparing, by the server, each potential payee of the gratuity that is associated with each of the one or more mobile devices with information associated with a potential payor, wherein the information comprises a payor type of the potential payor;
determining, by the server, that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that (a) the at least one potential payee is associated with a merchant in the proximity of the first mobile device and (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor;”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not provide any written description support for a server determination by which (emphasis added) “… one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that (a) the at least one potential payee is associated with a merchant in the proximity of the first mobile device and (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor;”, and also does not provide any express specification support for a server-performed comparison by which each potential payee of a gratuity is based upon a payor type of the potential payor.
In order to further support examiner’s stance, examiner notes the following:
Applicant’s disclosure does not at all logically associate any of the disclosure of ¶15 to any of the disclosure of ¶¶29,30, of which appears to be the basis for the claim amendment (See corresponding Examiner’s note further above).
Applicant’s disclosure does not at all provide any description of “…a payee type of the at least one potential payee [of a gratuity]7 … [being] associated with … [a] payor type of the potential payor”, as the specification does not at all describe any such association, let alone it being used as a basis for a determination by a server for potential payees being appropriate potential payees.
Applicant Remarks received 12/21/2025 (page 10) seem to incorrectly conflate payees with payors8: “As amended, the claim recites that the information associated with the potential payor comprises a payor type. In particular, while Luna discusses a type of worker (e.g., the purported payee) that receives gratuity ([110]), Luna does not disclose a type of consumer (e.g., the … payor). Furthermore, Luna does not disclose determining that a potential payee is an appropriate potential payee based on a determination that a payee type is associated with the payor type…”. Examiner acknowledges ¶29 of Applicant specification stating “…Helen … is presented with a listing of nearby potential payees that includes a photographic representation of one or her two friends…”, but there is nothing in Applicant’s specification indicating the friends splitting the bill as appropriate potential payees (i.e., recipients) of a gratuity; rather, they are only understood to correspond to payors – see ¶30.
Applicant’s specification and claims do not support an embodiment by which the server is “determining … that … one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that (a) the … one potential payee is associated with a merchant in the proximity of the first mobile device and (b) a payee type of the … one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor”.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-21 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the newly amended claim limitations as generally corresponding to an embodiment where other payors (e.g., analogous to ¶¶29,30 of Applicant specification) are determined to be displayed / presented to the user (i.e., the examiner’s best attempt at understanding what Applicant intended the claim limitations to correspond to).
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 Rejected in View of Luna, Frechette, Sabet, and Runyan
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150356548 A1 (Luna), in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130031001 A1 (Frechette), in further view of US 20160379201 A1 (Sabet), in further view of US 20130085931 A1 (Runyan).
With respect to claim 1, Luna discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶¶132-136), comprising:
autonomously identifying, by a server, one or more mobile devices (service provider / tippee devices) in a proximity of a first mobile device that is associated with a potential payor of a gratuity (consumer / tipper device associated with a consumer / tipper); (¶¶22, 44, 68)
¶22: A computer server can be provided that allows both consumers (e.g., tippers) and service providers (e.g., tippees) to register as users of the system. … the user's mobile device can be tracked by the system so that the system knows from the user's global positioning system (GPS) coordinates where the consumer is located. While described with reference to the use of GPS to determine a location of an entity, such as a consumer or service provider, the present disclosure is drawn broadly to incorporate all means of determining an approximate location of any such entity. For example, cell tower triangulation and associating predetermined location information with a wi-fi network (e.g., using IP address) are but two additional examples of methodologies that may be employed to determine the location of an entity. In general, methodologies for determining a location of a consumer may include network-based and handset-based technologies, SIM-based, Wi-fi and hybrid systems.
¶44: The system will be able to identify all service providers in an area proximate to the location of the consumer. So, if the consumer communicates with the server noting his/her current geographical location and the various service providers communicate with the server noting their current geographical locations, the server should … easily match up the consumer with potential service providers. In the case of the cab driver … The server would simply present the consumer with the profiles of cab drivers in close proximity to the consumer's coordinates.
¶68: … By default, tippers may see a list of “nearby” tippees based, for example, upon a GPS location….
comparing, by the server, each potential payee of the gratuity that is associated with each of the one or more mobile devices (e.g., each service provider’s / tipee’s occupation / industry / other datum) with information associated with the potential payor, wherein the information comprises a payor type of the potential payor (¶¶22, 33, 38, in further view of ¶¶3-4 – see Examiner’s note)
¶22: A computer server can be provided that allows both consumers (e.g., tippers) and service providers (e.g., tippees) to register as users of the system. …
¶33: … it is envisioned that the tippee would register as being associated with a particular business or a particular manager. …
¶38: A service provider can also register with the system as a tippee by first establishing an account with the system. … Thus, the service provider can register as associated with a particular business or a particular location. For example, Carol Smith can register as a waitress at Applebee's on Camelback Drive. By associating the service provider with a particular location, the system will be able to assist the consumer in locating a particular service provider when the consumer attempts to look up that service provider's profile.
¶3: … the displayed plurality of service providers may be filtered by occupation.
¶4: … In embodiments, the displayed plurality of service providers may be filtered by industry or some other datum that is associated with the service providers.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that, per the payor devices specifically displaying payees associated with the system of Luna and the system understood to contain multiple payor profiles, the server is implicitly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art reading Luna to compare each potential payee with that of the potential payor based on payee / payor profile types, as other types of accounts (e.g., other payors) are not disclosed to be returned in the user interface of a given payor in Luna’s disclosure.
determining, by the server, that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination (a) that the at least one potential payee is associated with a merchant (business, as designated by registered location) in the proximity of the first mobile device … (customer/tipper device); (Abstract and ¶¶3,5 in further view of ¶38 and ¶¶132-136)
Abstract: … accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location, [of the payee / tippee / consumer device] …
¶3: … a method comprises deriving a location of a consumer based, at least in part, on a datum associated with a mobile device, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location, …
¶5: In accordance with an exemplary and non-limiting embodiment, a method comprises deriving a location of a consumer …, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location…
¶38: … The service provider in most cases will be affiliated with a … geographical location. Thus, the service provider can register as associated with a particular business …. For example, Carol Smith can register as a waitress at Applebee's on Camelback Drive.
communicating, by the server, a notification to the first mobile device that at least one appropriate potential payee has been identified; (At least ‘transmitting displayable data’ portions of abstract, ¶¶3, 5, 29, 121 & Figs. 10-12, in further view of ¶38 and ¶¶132-136)
Abstract: … method includes deriving a location of a consumer based, at least in part, on a datum associated with a mobile device, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location, transmitting displayable data that is associated with the plurality of identified service providers to the mobile device, …
¶3: … a method comprises deriving a location of a consumer based, at least in part, on a datum associated with a mobile device, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location, transmitting displayable data that is associated with the plurality of identified service providers to the mobile device, …
¶5: In accordance with an exemplary and non-limiting embodiment, a method comprises deriving a location of a consumer …, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location [of the payee / tippee / consumer device], … transmitting displayable data that is associated with the plurality of identified service providers to the mobile device,
¶121: First, at step 1000, there is derived a location of a consumer based, at least in part, on a datum associated with a mobile device …, at step 1002, one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers are accessed to identify one or more service providers having a registered location that is within a predetermined proximity to the derived location. Next, at step 1004, displayable data is transmitted that is associated with the plurality of identified service providers to the mobile device…
¶38: … The service provider in most cases will be affiliated with a … geographical location. Thus, the service provider can register as associated with a particular business …. For example, Carol Smith can register as a waitress at Applebee's on Camelback Drive.
causing, by the server and for each appropriate potential payee and not for any potential payee that is not determined to be the appropriate potential payee, a presentation of a face or biographical data of each appropriate potential payee that is logically associated with a respective identified mobile device, (See indented mappings further below)
(With respect to the “causing, by the server, for each appropriate potential payee and not for any potential payee that is not determined to be the appropriate potential payee, a presentation of … data of each appropriate potential payee of the gratuity …” portion of claim limitations, see at least ¶¶3-5, 121-126 and Figs. 10-12’s ‘transmitting displayable data’ portions, in further view of at least ¶38 and ¶¶132-136;)
(With respect to the “…presentation of a face or biographical data of each appropriate potential payee of the gratuity…” portion of claim limitations, see ¶¶29, 41, 63)
¶29: “When the profiles are displayed on a consumer's mobile device, the consumer can select the service provider that provided the service to him/her. The service provider can be identified by name and picture”.
¶41: “As part of the registration process, the service provider can upload a picture of the service provider that can be used to identify the service provider. In addition, the service provider can upload a name. In one embodiment, a service provider will provide their full legal name for registration and account set up but the smart device, personal computer, and badge will only show the first name or nick name in order to protect their privacy. A service provider might also include a message to be part of their profile. For example, “Thank you for the tip—I'm using the tips that I earn to help pay my college tuition.”
¶63: “In some embodiments, a screen may request additional information, such as, for example, an address. …. Uploading a profile photo may help tippers identify whom they want to tip more easily. Tapping a button may give the user the option of taking a photo or choosing one from their library.”
(With respect to the “potential payee … that is logically associated with a respective identified mobile device,” portion of claim limitations, see at least ¶¶22, 28, 44, 45)
¶22: “A computer server can be provided that allows both consumers (e.g., tippers) and service providers (e.g., tippees) to register as users of the system…In one embodiment, the user's mobile device can be tracked by the system so that the system knows from the user's global positioning system (GPS) coordinates…”
¶28: “When the tippee is registered with the system, the tippee will enter a geographical location and/or business name where the tippee is located. GPS and NFC technology will be activated or not by tippee by preference…GPS and NFC technology will be activated or not by tippee by preference….”
¶44: “…So, if the consumer communicates with the server noting his/her current geographical location and the various service providers communicate with the server noting their current geographical locations, the server should be able to easily match up the consumer with potential service providers…”
¶45: “… it is envisioned that a service provider could check into the system each day. This would notify the system that the service provider was on duty and available. It would also allow the service provider to provide a current GPS location.”
(With respect to the “by the server,” portion of claim limitations, see at least ¶¶22, 29, 44, 132-136;)
wherein the presentation is displayed on the first mobile device; (See at least abstract, ¶¶3-5, 29, 121-126 and Figs. 10 ref 1004, Fig. 11 ref 1104, Fig. 12, ref 1204)
and causing, by the server and in response to an input received via a user interface of the first mobile device, crediting of an account associated with a selected appropriate potential payee of the gratuity. (Fig. 10, refs 1006, 1008, Fig. 11, refs 1106, 1108, 1110, Fig. 12, refs 1206, 1208, 1210 and at least ¶¶3-5, 60, 93, 110, 121-123; With respect to “…the server…” portion of limitation, see ¶¶22, 29, 44, 132-136; See also ¶¶68-69; See also ¶¶110,133)
While Examiner respectfully submits Luna discloses the entirety of the claim limitations as shown above and anticipates claim 1, examiner understands a more conservative interpretation of “…associated with the potential payer…” may disagree that the filter criteria filtering the service providers on the potential payer’s device in Luna clearly constitutes information “associated with the potential payer”, as the association is because of an intermediary thing associating them (e.g., the device being the mutual association between the filter criteria and the potential payor). Arguendo, for sake of compact prosecution, Frechette, similarly facing problem of providing a list of options as Applicant and Luna, discloses search criteria analogous to the filters of Luna, where it is specified by the user (i.e., is information associated with the potential payer, even in a more conservative interpretation) – see abstract; ¶¶4, 16, 20, 41, 43, 50.
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system / method / computer readable medium of Luna to have the application more specifically allow for the filters of Luna to be specified by the consumer / tippee / customer of Luna, resulting in the filter’s of Luna being user-selected on their device (i.e., the filtering criteria being information associated with the potential payer), per Frechette’s disclosure (above), in order to advantageously allow the user to find results of potential payees / service providers more efficiently and flexibly based on consumer / tippee / payor considerations.
Furthermore, while Examiner respectfully submits one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand Luna’s disclosed “crediting of the account associated with the selected appropriate potential payee of the gratuity” is in response to an input received via a user interface of the first mobile device, per the service provider being selected as a precondition of the crediting per sequence shown in Fig. 10, refs 1006, 1008, Fig. 11, refs 1106, 1108, 1110, Fig. 12, refs 1206, 1208, 12109, Examiner understands one with a narrower interpretation of “…in response…” may disagree as to whether the disclosure of Luna is prima facie clear in disclosing the limitation.
Arguendo, Sabet, of a similar field of endeavor as Applicant and Luna, discloses payment associated with the selected appropriate potential payee of the gratuity is in response to an input received via a user interface of the first mobile device (Fig. 4B, refs 4110, 4120 in further view of ¶¶73, 85; Fig 5, refs 5040, 5080, & 5090 in further view of ¶¶91–95 disclosing selection of both a recipient and payment option received by the mobile device application interface, of which subsequently results in the gratuity engine initiating the recipient payment option10; Note the gratuity engine is part of a remote application server – see Fig. 2, ref 2110 and ¶¶34-39; Also note gratuity engine supports a mobile application running on the payment device (¶40), where the payment device is understood to be that of the payor (at least ¶¶23,24) and, in embodiments, a mobile device (at least ¶50) – analogous to Luna’s disclosure).
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system / method / computer readable medium of Luna in view of Frechette to incorporate user selections of the payment method via user interface, consistent with Sabet’s disclosure (above), resulting in the tipping application within customer / tipper device of Luna in view of Frechette to include an interface allowing for user selections of the payment method via user interface, further resulting in causing, the server, in response to an input received via a user interface of the first mobile device, to credit an account associated with a selected appropriate potential payee of the gratuity, in order to increase the saliency and control of the payment method used in tipping.
Luna, Frechette, Sabet do not disclose, but Runyan discloses or otherwise suggests:
determining, by the server (payment service provider / payment provider, see Fig. 6, ref 608, in further view of at least ¶¶25, 37, 53, 54 characterizing embodiments of the payment service provider as including a server communicating over a network), that at least one potential payee is an appropriate potential payee of the gratuity based on a determination that … (b) a payee type of the at least one potential payee is associated with the payor type of the potential payor; (See at least ¶¶21-22 and 27-33, in further view of abstract and ¶40; See also Examiner’s Note further below):
¶¶21-22 and 27-33, underline emphasis added: [0021] The present disclosure provides a system and method for determining a pool of possible payers within a group known to the primary payer or user. When the user is ready to pay a bill or make a payment, a payment provider is notified, who then determines the location of the user. People known to the user are identified, such as through a user's contact list and/or one or more social networks of the user. The locations of those people identified are determined, and those in close proximity to the user's current location are presented to the user on the user device. The people may be shown with a photo, name, email address, or other identifier. The user then selects desired ones to share the payment. The payment provider sends requests to the selected people to make a payment. Once received, individual ones of the selected people can make a payment to the user or to the payee through the payment provider. [0022] Thus, instead of requiring the user or customer to enter one or more email addresses or navigate through a lengthy contact list, friends or colleagues around the user can be automatically identified. After calculating the amount per person, instead of prompting the user for email addresses, the application could leverage its proximity capabilities (e.g., BlueTooth, GPS, or another technology) to not only discover the people around the user but to also utilize the user's contact list, LinkedIn list, or Facebook friend list to filter the discovered group down to only those known to the user. [0027] Referring back to FIG. 1, after the payment request is received, the payment provider determines the location of the user at step 104. This can be done in any suitable way, such as determining the user's location through a GPS feature on the user's device or the location of the restaurant. … Referring back to FIG. 1, once people known to the user and within a certain distance from the user (i.e., "known neighbors") are determined, the results are presented to the user at step 110, such as on a display of the user device. FIG. 4 is an exemplary partial display of user device 302 displaying a visual representation of the known neighbors. Known neighbors or devices 304, 306, 308, 310, and 312 are shown as visual representations 404, 406, 408, 410, and 412, respectively, on a display screen 402. Visual representations can be one or more of a photo, a name, an image, an icon, and/or a user name. For example, visual representations 404 and 408 may be photos retrieved from the user's Facebook.RTM. account or LinkedIn.RTM. account, and visual representations 406, 410, and 412 may be names from the user's contact list. [0028] Once the user location is determined, identities of people in proximity to (e.g., "neighbors") the user are determined. "In proximity" may be defined in different ways, depending on the user, the payment provider, or the location of the user. For example, the user may set preferences that the payment provider determine people within 100 feet of the user location determined at step 104. Alternatively, the payment provider may set a distance to define the geographic "fence" for the user. In yet another example, the payment provider may determine the distance based on the location of the user. For example, if the user is in a densely populated location, such as a convention, restaurant, or mall, the distance may be shorter than when the user is in a sparsely populated location, such as at a county fair. [0033] Upon viewing display screen 402, the user can determine whether the people to share in a payment are all displayed. There may be various reasons for not having all the people displayed, such as one or more devices not turned on or unable to be located by the payment provider and/or a located neighbor "unknown" to the user, e.g., the neighbor is not in any searched database (contact list) or site (Facebook.RTM., LinkedIn.RTM.).
Abstract and ¶40, underline emphasis added: [abstract] An application or App on a payer's mobile device is used to discover people known to the user and who are in close proximity to the user at the time of a payment request. Discovery can be through searching contact lists and/or social networks of the payer and/or through the payer device discovering contacts around the payer and then searching the payer's contact or social network list to see if there are any matches. These people are then shown to the user on the user device, such as with a photo, icon, name, and/or email address. The user selects desired ones, which causes requests to be sent to the selected people, such as through text, voice, or email, to the respective devices. The selected people can then easily confirm or authorize a payment be sent to the user or to a payee. [¶40] The amount requested of each payer may vary or be split equally. For an equal split, the payment provider determines the number of payers and divides the total amount of the bill with the number of payers. That amount, with any additional fees/charges, is included in the payment request. For a varied split, the user may determine the amount to request from each payer, such as by entering an amount corresponding to each selected payer. Payers may also modify the requested amount, such as by increasing the amount for an extra tip or other reason.
Examiner’s Note: For purposes of compact prosecution of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the examiner is interpreting the newly amended claim limitation (above) as generally corresponding to an embodiment where other payors (e.g., analogous to ¶¶29,30 of Applicant specification) are determined (in order to be subsequently displayed / presented to the user; i.e., the examiner’s best attempt at understanding what Applicant intended the newly amended claim limitations to correspond to).
With respect to claim 2, Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, and renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Luna additionally discloses:
Wherein causing to credit the account associated with the selected appropriate potential payee includes causing to credit multiple accounts associated with the selected appropriate potential payee in accordance with defined preferences of the selected appropriate potential payee. (¶¶25,78)
With respect to claim 3, Luna in view of Frechette and Sabet renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Luna additionally discloses:
The method further comprising receiving payment information from the potential payor specifying a payment amount to credit the account associated with the selected appropriate potential payee. (¶¶29, 36, 68, 77, 86)
With respect to claim 4, Luna in view of Frechette and Sabet renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Luna additionally discloses:
wherein causing to credit the account associated with the selected appropriate potential payee includes causing a corresponding debiting of a payor account associated with the potential payor. (¶¶60, 93 – Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art reading Luna understands a payment using a debit card/account results in debiting of the account)
With respect to claim 5, Luna in view of Frechette and Sabet renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Luna additionally discloses:
the method further comprising … a point-of-sale terminal associated with the merchant that is within the proximity of the first mobile device (¶¶116-118) providing an indication to the potential payor via the first mobile device of an order of the potential payor that is associated with the merchant (¶117: “The merchant terminal or smart device will be capable of sending a notification to the smart device with total amount and accept or reject payment.”),
… wherein causing to credit the account associated with the selected appropriate potential payee includes causing to credit a merchant account associated with the merchant for at least a portion of the order. (¶68 of Luna)
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Luna discloses:
(claim 9) One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions thereon, wherein the instructions cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶¶126, 132-138)
(claim 17) A system comprising: memory; and one or more processors coupled with the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶¶126, 132-138)
With respect to the remaining claim limitations of both claims 9 and 17, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 (above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 (above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 (above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claims 12 and 20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 (above), mutatis mutandis.
Claims Rejected in View of Luna, Frechette, Sabet, Runyan, and Macht
Claims 6-8, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, and Runyan, as applied in parent claims 1, 9, and 17, in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180165661 A1 (Macht).
With respect to claim 6, Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet and Runyan renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Luna additionally discloses:
wherein the presentation is (a) a photographic representation of the […] [appropriate potential payee of the gratuity] (¶29 in further view of ¶63) or the biographical data of the appropriate potential payee of the gratuity comprising a service performing employee … (¶29 in further view of ¶41) and (b) a service performing employee status (¶29 in further view of at least ¶38) […]
Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes the claim includes two sets of alternative limitations11, and only needs to include one alternative from both sets of alternatives, under broadest reasonable interpretation. The first alternative limitations are between the photographic representation and the bibliographical data. The second alternative limitations are between the two different types of employee statuses.
Examiner’s Note (1): Examiner, in light of Applicant specification, interprets “service performing employee … status” as including a description of job title, as that appears to be Applicant’s support for limitation – see Fig 2B of Applicant specification.
While Examiner respectfully submits one or ordinary skill in the art would understand photos used to identify individuals (such as the service providers) typically involve their face, Luna fails to expressly teach that the photographic representation of the appropriate potential payee of the gratuity includes their face.
However, Macht discloses photographic representations of appropriate potential payees of gratuity as including their face (Fig. 3E). Furthermore, Macht discloses a presentation including a service performing employee status (e.g., “BARISTA, Coffee Shop | Hollywood” in figs. 3E, 3F)
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the presentations of Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, and Runyan include faces of themselves (and performing employee status), in order to advantageously distinguish themselves from other tippees more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, Runyan, and Macht renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 6. Luna further discloses:
wherein causing the photographic representation of the appropriate potential payee that is logically associated with the one or more mobile devices includes causing one identified mobile device to further display biographic information associated with the appropriate potential payee. (¶29 in further view of ¶41)
With respect to claim 8, Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, Runyan, and Macht renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 7. Luna further discloses:
wherein the biographic information associated with the appropriate potential payee has been supplied by the appropriate potential payee. (¶29 in further view of ¶41)
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 (further above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 (further above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 (further above), mutatis mutandis.
With respect to claim 21, Luna does not disclose, but Macht discloses: wherein crediting of the account is performed anonymously such that information associated with the potential payor is not presented to the selected appropriate potential payee. (See at least abstract, ¶¶7, 36, 38, 47, 57, 59, 61, and Fig. 3J, ref 365; ¶61: “…As shown, this tip may be provided anonymously by clicking the anonymous button 365.”)
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the anonymous tipping/payment technique, as disclosed by Macht, resulting in the payments of Luna in view of Frechette, Sabet, Runyan, and Macht to be optionally provided anonymously, in order to advantageously limit their level of personally identifying information disclosure (at least abstract of Macht).
Conclusion
The following prior art made is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The following prior art pertaining to location-based services (LBS) in a payment context:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150356548 A1 (Luna). Luna discloses deriving a location of a consumer based on mobile device data, accessing one or more accounts of a plurality of service providers to identify one or more service providers having a registered location within a predetermined proximity of the consumer, and transmitting data associated with the plurality of identified service providers to the mobile device of the consumer. The method also involves receiving an indication of a chosen service provider selected from the display, receiving a money transfer request, and executing a money transfer request, where the payer is the customer, and the payee is the chosen service provider (abstract). ¶2 contemplates the payments may be tips / gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160379201 A1 (Sabet). Sabet discloses a system and method for facilitating gratuities to individuals and employees of establishments based on location (abstract).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160379202 A1 (Turner). Turner discloses location-based communications that determine a service worker is within a threshold distance of a mobile communication device of a customer (abstract). The invention contemplates rendering a gratuity payment to a service worker by the customer (abstract). At least Figs. 4A-4C are relevant.
United States Patent Publication No. US 10614445 B1 (Dorsey). Dorsey discloses a proximity-based payment solution (title, abstract). At least Figs. 4, 8A, and 8B are relevant. Furthermore, at least Col 9, lines 28-33 of Dorsey are relevant. Dorsey does not explicitly contemplate the payment corresponds to tips and/or gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130132274 A1 (Henderson). At least Fig. 1 and ¶8-10, 52 are relevant.
United States Patent Publication No. US 9681359 B2 (Ramalingam), disclosing techniques for frictionless transactions using geolocations and user identifiers (abstract). At least Col 3, lines 35-51 in view of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 are relevant. Ramalingam does not contemplate tips and/or gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150373489 A1 (Li). At least ¶¶50, 86 are relevant. Li does not contemplate tips and/or gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130031001 A1 (Frenchette). At least ¶43 is relevant.
The following prior art, pertaining to location-based services (LBS) in tandem with a point of sale (POS) device:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160063606 A1 (Fedak), disclosing a method for locating patrons via detecting a mobile device of a customer at an establishment (abstract). The method also involves linking an order placed by the customer / patron with a location (abstract). Furthermore, at least ¶¶16, 22-36, 73 are relevant. Fedak does not contemplate the transactions involve tips and/or gratuity.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160232515 A1 (Jhas). See at least abstract.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140188733 A1 (Granberry). At least Fig. 4, refs 412, 414, and 416 in further view of ¶¶4, 5, 34, and claims 12 and 13 are relevant. Granberry does not contemplate tips and/or gratuity.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160283927 A1 (Smith). At least Figs. 7A, 7B, and 8 are relevant. Smith does not explicitly contemplate the payment corresponds to tips and/or gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160192123 A1 (Lim). At least Figs. 1, 3 are relevant. Lim does not contemplate tips and/or gratuity.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150371210 A1 (Chatterjee). At least ¶16 is relevant.
The following prior art, pertaining to location-based services (LBS) in other contexts pertinent to Applicant’s claims:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180087921 A1 (Suzuki), disclosing a method for movement of mobile terminals (e.g., phones) are tracked, so as to provide navigation to public places, of which may include dynamic changing positions – this is contemplated in scenarios where the public places correspond to individuals such as buskers (At least abstract in further view of ¶227).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150127569 A1 (Baldwin). Baldwin discloses an employment discovery system for identifying potential employment using geographical location information (abstract, ¶44, 45)
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180276618 A1 (Nichani). Nichani discloses an app which enables connecting candidate employees and employers through GPS (title, abstract).
The following prior art disclosing aspects of anonymous payment, in context of either location-based-services (LBS) or tips/gratuities, generally:
PNG
media_image1.png
758
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180165661 A1 (Macht). Macht discloses a method of tipping anonymous funds with minimal disclosure to recipients (abstract). At least ¶¶28, 34, 35, 36, 38, 47, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, are relevant, where some of the disclosure pertains to location-based services.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160071097 A1 (Lazay). Lazay discloses transacting using identifiers that are not personally identifying (abstract). At least Abstract, ¶22,38,39,40,119,132,152 are pertinent for discussing aspects of anonymity. ¶¶91, 96-102 in further view of Fig. 5 are relevant for disclosing aspects about location-based services in tandem with anonymity aspects. Furthermore, at least ¶¶22, 102 contemplates the transactions may correspond to tips to service providers.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150356547 A1 (Abed). Abed discloses a system utilized to provide clients with a list of service providers based on proximity (¶52). Furthermore, ¶54 also contemplates tipping anonymously. At least ¶¶41, 46, 60 are additionally relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20100062746 A1 (Proctor). Proctor discloses a technique for facilitating transactions between two entities associated with wireless devices in close proximity to one another, where two communication channels are utilized: (1) a short-range wireless capability between the two devices, and (2) the devices communicating with a central server via the internet (abstract, title). At least ¶¶7, 20 contemplates the arrangement’s purpose is for enabling anonymous methods of engaging in transactions. Examiner notes the inventors of Proctor have multiple similar publications and patents. Proctor does not appear to expressly contemplate tips and/or gratuities.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150026062 A1 (Paulsen), disclosing untraceable tips/donations (¶63).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130290173 A1 (Nemeroff), disclosing a business method for providing tips / gratuity over the internet (abstract). At least ¶29 and claim 2 discloses anonymously providing the tip. Nemeroff does not appear to correspond to location-based services.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140372188 A1 (Desideri), contemplating anonymous tips (¶92). Desideri does not appear to correspond to location-based services.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180089660 A1 (Elliot), disclosing method of making anonymous payments (at least abstract).
The following prior art, with pertinent disclosure drawn to user interfaces and their use cases:
US 20180165661 A1 (Macht). Figs. 3A-3M are relevant.
20160379201 A1 (Sabet). At least ¶¶30, 55, 93 and Fig. 5, ref 5080 are relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 10614445 B1 (Dorsey). Figs. 8A-G are relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160283927 A1 (Hurley). At least abstract, figs. 4, 9, and ¶¶49,59,60,62 are relevant. Hurley does not expressly contemplate tips and/or gratuities.
The following prior art, generally pertinent to Applicant’s invention for disclosure analogous to ¶¶29-30 of Applicant specification (e.g., disclosing detection of nearby friends to split payment):
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130085931 A1 (Runyan). At least abstract and ¶¶21-22 and 27-33 are relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170193490 A1 (Mercille). At least ¶¶21,42,80 are relevant. Furthermore, at least Fig. 2D, ref 1106 and Figs. 2E-2F and at least ¶72 is relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140351118 A1 (Zhao). At least Figs. 1-3 and corresponding disclosure is pertinent.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170083930 A1 (Naraj). At least ¶65 and Fig. 10 is relevant.
The following prior art, generally pertinent to Applicant’s invention for logically distinguishing / separating account types:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150356548 A1 (Luna). At least Fig. 8’s flow with respect to account creation and Tipper/Tippee decision diamond is relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140372288 A1 (Hamblet). At least ¶32 is relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130027227 A1 (Nordstrom). At least Fig. 1, refs 30, 32, and 34 are relevant.
The following prior art, generally pertinent to Applicant’s invention for reasons not applicable in the prior sections:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130218794 A1 (Scott). Scott discloses a list of candidates as including an unemployment status (e.g., actively looking – see Fig. 1 and ¶17)
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20050246252 A1 (Wallace). Wallace is pertinent in that it discloses employment information as including either an employed or unemployed status (¶54).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 See 103 rejections further within office action for each claim’s specific combination of prior art.
2 Underline emphasis added.
3 Examiner notes all arguments drawn to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are drawn to the newly amended claims.
4 See pages 11-13 of the 10/28/2024 PTAB decision for the 35 U.S.C. § 101 eligibility decision of the parent application’s claims.
5 Underline original, referring to newly amended claim limitations.
6 Bold emphasis original, underline emphasis added by examiner.
7 Per antecedent basis
8 Bold emphasis original, underline emphasis added by examiner.
9 See also ¶¶121-123
10 See ¶55 and Fig. 3 showing the application interface of the payment device communicates with user via display, manual input, etc.,
11 See (a) and (b) added in limitation above Examiner’s note
Prosecution Insights