DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant case is a continuation of U.S. Application # 18/380,938. This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed May 06, 2026 in which claims 1-4, 12-13 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 5 and 16 are cancelled. Claim 21 and 22 are added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,016 В2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the 12211016 B2 patent each recite the following: receiving, by a delegation server, image data of invoices associated with a plurality of transactions conducted by a first user; converting, via a character recognition process, the image data to text information; extracting, from the text information, first transaction data comprising line item information associated with a first transaction of the plurality of transactions; generating, by the delegation server, a payment link comprising: a first parameter indicating a portion of a value of the first transaction, and a second parameter indicating a payment token associated with the first transaction; extracting, from the payment token, the first transaction data associated with the first transaction; linking, based on the extracted first transaction data, the second transaction to the first transaction.
Regarding claim 1, most of the language in this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,211,016. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,211,016 teaches limitations omitted from claim 1 of the instant application. Hence, the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent number 12,211,016.
35 USC § 101
4. The claims recite abstract elements under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. However, the features in amended claim 1 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner finds the applicant’s arguments regarding the Step 2A-Prong 2 on pages 9-10 of Remarks persuasive. The limitations of claim 1 provide a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the claims provide a practical application and are patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 19 are also deemed patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20-22 are deemed patent eligible by virtue of dependency on a patent eligible claim.
No Prior Art Rejections
5. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22. While some individual features of claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Spindel (U.S. Patent Number (10,621,563 B1)) – This invention relates generally to financial transactions involving payment cards, and more particularly, to a technique for apportioning a payment card transaction among multiple payers. In certain embodiments, the technique involves communication between a mobile payment application installed on the consumer's mobile device and a remote payment service system (PSS). The mobile payment application enables the user to specify how many payers there are, who the payers are, and exactly how the transaction amount should be apportioned among the payers. The mobile payment application communicates this information to the PSS, which then executes or triggers reimbursement to carry out the specified apportionment.
2) Coffman, (U.S. Patent Number (10,579,975 B2)) - This invention generally relates to financial service products and systems, and more particularly, to systems, processes, and computer programs for determining the amount to split a bill associated with a receipt and assist a user to distribute the payment for the bill associated with the receipt. The disclosed embodiments may also generate and provide a link to a payment web page to each of the purchasers for collecting the distributed portion of the bill. Accordingly, some embodiments provide mechanisms that allow purchasers to easily distribute the payment of a bill associated with a receipt and enable each of the purchasers to pay the portion of the bill he/she is responsible for.
3) Ellis (U.S. Patent Number (10,380,583 B1)) – The invention relates generally to the field of systems that use mobile devices to transfer funds. More specifically, the disclosure relates to systems and methods for enabling individuals to use their electronic devices to transfer funds and purchase products and services.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 extension lee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
July 17, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights