DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/28/2026. Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are pending; claims 21-28 are withdrawn (see below); and, claims 1-12 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 06/04/2019.
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 .
Restriction
The examiner issued a restriction on 05/27/2026. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-12) and added new claims 21-28. The examiner will examine the elected Group I claims 1-12 and withdraw new claims 21-28, as they are fundamentally different based on the various different limitations of each. Accordingly, claims 21-28 are withdrawn as they are independent and distinct from the elected claims 1-12.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-12 are process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
detecting an access of a group payment element of a checkout interface of a client application that is executing on a computing device of a first user (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning);
authenticating the first user based on one or more received authentication credentials of the first user (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified);
causing, based on the detected access of the group payment element and a successful authentication of the first user, the client application to launch a group selection interface, wherein the group selection interface displays one or more elements associated with one or more second users, respectively (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; for the connection and communication of sending/receiving between parties, see Step 2B, WURC activity);
detecting a selection, by the first user via the group selection interface, of at least a subset of the one or more elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Voter Verified);
determining, based on an input received from the first user, an allocation of monetary contributions from the first user and the one or more second users corresponding to the selected subset of the one or more elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)); and
facilitating a transaction based on the determined allocation of the monetary contributions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of a checkout interface of a client application that is executing on a computing device, the client application to launch a group selection interface, and the first user via the group selection interface. The examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f) – apply it on a computer rationale. See MPEP 2106.04(f) - Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include:
i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Step 2B – Claim 1 is not found to include significantly more. The additional limitation analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied here. See MPEP 2106.05(d), Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added))
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For the limitation above relating to opening a group interface where members can communication, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information found to be WURC activity, where the application service/product is the intermediary
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 2 is abstract idea performed via apply it rationale. See e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 3 is more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 4 is more abstract idea MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B) performed via apply it rationale. Claims 5-12 are more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and (II)(A-C). All claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0172704 to Atagun et al. (“Atagun”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0153265 to Hershfield et al. (“Hershfield”).
With regard to claim 1, Atagun discloses a method, comprising:
detecting an access of a group payment element of a checkout interface of a client application that is executing on a computing device of a first user (see Atagun e.g. [0049] a user logs into his or her payment service provider account to check out, the user may choose the shared pool in the payment service provider account to process the transaction, for example, to make the payment, [0074], [0062-63] U1 may go through a checkout process, for example, on a merchant's website, to pay for the item and log into, for example, his or her payment provider service (e.g., PayPal.RTM.) account. It should be appreciated that a merchant may include any seller of items or a marketplace.
[0063] After logging into his or her payment provider service account, U1 may select the shared pool `marketing-technology-team` as a funding source to make the payment, and indicate that all pool members will pay an appropriate amount, e.g., an equal amount between the members, or different amounts of a payment according to percentages or other rules set up or determined by the members of the shared pool.);
authenticating the first user based on one or more received authentication credentials of the first user (Atagun e.g. [0025] By login into his or her individual account with the payment service provider, the user may access the shared pool through his or her payment service provider account. Login into the payment service provider account may be done through a secure way; for example, the user may be required to enter credentials for authentication such as a PIN, username/password, etc.);
causing, based on the detected access of the group payment element and a successful authentication of the first user, the client application to launch a group selection interface (Ataman, [0062-63] and [0035]; Atagun does not explicitly disclose where successful authentication causes the launch of payment selection interface; See Hirshfield e.g. Fig. 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
320
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where upon logging into the account, this causes the add payment options selection to be made, which in view of Atagun, can be a group payment option. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the payment art to modify Ataman’s split payment interface and functionality to include the ability to login and then cause payment options to be presented/selected. The benefit of having to login and then viewing the available payment options, such as split payments and the authorized members, is that this adds a layer of security and ensures that the user is authorized to view and use the available payment options that are presented to the user, for payment; Hirshfield [0007] [0019] [0029] [0030]), wherein the group selection interface displays one or more elements associated with one or more second users, respectively (Atagun e.g. [0035] [0041] [0047]);
detecting a selection, by the first user via the group selection interface, of at least a subset of the one or more elements (Atagun, e.g. [0035] [0079]);
determining, based on an input received from the first user, an allocation of monetary contributions from the first user and the one or more second users corresponding to the selected subset of the one or more elements (Atagun, [0081] While making a payment using the shared pool, the individual member making the payment may select the contributors and set the percentage or amount that each contributing member needs to pay. The individual member making the payment may pick a shared pool, pick a friend to `share` the payment, set his or her (individual member making the payment) contribution as 0% and his or her friend's contribution as 100%. As such, the friend member may use this shared pool mechanism to authorize the individual member making the payment to `pay on his or her behalf`. and [0022]); and
facilitating a transaction based on the determined allocation of the monetary contributions (Atagun [0064-65], and [0050]).
With regard to claim 2, Atagun further discloses one or more of the detecting the access, the authenticating, the causing, the detecting the selection, the determining, or the facilitating is performed at least in part by one or more hardware processors of a payment provider that is different than an entity corresponding to the client application (Atagun, [0013] The payment service provider may be, for example, PayPal.RTM., Inc. and/or eBay.RTM., Inc. of San Jose, Calif., USA; [0024]; [0058]; [0104] As such, the payment service provider 308 includes a service application, which may be adapted to interact with each user device 1200 and/or each recipient server 1400 over the network 1600 to facilitate the selection, purchase, and/or payment of applications, products, and/or services by the user 302 from one or more of the recipient servers 1400. In one example, the payment service provider server 308 may be provided by PayPal.RTM., Inc. and/or eBay.RTM. of San Jose, Calif., USA.).
With regard to claim 3, Atagun further discloses determining that the first user lacks an account with the payment provider, wherein the authenticating the first user comprises onboarding the first user based on the determining that the first user lacks the account with the payment provider (Atagun, e.g. [0058]).
With regard to claim 4, Atagun further discloses causing, after the detecting of the selection of the at least the subset of the one or more elements, the client application to launch a monetary contribution allocation interface, wherein the input is received via the monetary contribution allocation interface (Atagun, [0020] amounts, percentages, etc.; [0037] etc.).
With regard to claim 5, Atagun further discloses comprising, before the detecting the access of the group payment element: analyzing information associated with the transaction; and rendering the group payment element as a part of the checkout interface based on the analyzing indicating that the transaction pertains to a specified category (see Atagun, e.g. Fig. 2 and associated text).
With regard to claim 6, Atagun further discloses where the one or more elements associated with the one or more second users are displayed by the group selection interface without requiring direct input from the first user (see Atagun, e.g. [0022] set up rules, then automatically split payments according to the rules (e.g. equal or unequal)).
With regard to claim 10, Atagun further discloses where the group selection interface comprises an option that enables the first user to designate a group of the one or more second users as a preset group of users with whom the transaction is to be conducted together (Atagun e.g. [0067]).
With regard to claim 11, Atagun further discloses automatically allocating the monetary contributions based on user information about the first user or the one or more second users (Atagun e.g. [0020-22]).
With regard to claim 12, Atagun further discloses automatically transmitting an invoice for the transaction to the computing device or to one or more computing devices of the one or more second users for whom the monetary contributions have been allocated (Atagun e.g. [0041]).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atagun, Hiershfield, and further US Pat No 11,042,863 to Omojola (“Omojola”).
With regard to claim 7, Atagun further discloses at least one element of the one or more elements of the group selection interface corresponds to a suggested group of the one or more second users (Atagun e.g. [0011-14]; see also Omojola at col. 7, ln 40, “filter to select only those nearby users who are also contacts of the sender.” ).
With regard to claim 8, Atagun further discloses the suggested group of the one or more second users have conducted previous transactions with the first user (Atagun e.g. [0088]; see also Omojola col. 8, ln. 40, receiver 440 who has previously engaged in a transaction with the sender).
With regard to claim 9, Atagun does not disclose, and Omojola discloses, the suggested group of the second users and the first user are at a same location (s) (Omojola col. 3 ln 50-60, (17) By using the disclosed technology to automatically identify the intended recipients of the group request based on location and contextual criteria, the sender need not manually input recipient information, or perform bump or touch actions with devices of the recipients. With less time spent on data entry, money transfer transactions according to the disclosed technology can be conducted in a fast and reliable manner; Omojola col. 4 ln 35-45; Omojola col 10 ln 20-30).
For claims 7-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atagun’s group plitting payment system to include the ability to gather/suggest/recommend the users in the group based on the same location, previous engagements with the other, and the like, and the added benefit of such combination is “(17) By using the disclosed technology to automatically identify the intended recipients of the group request based on location and contextual criteria, the sender need not manually input recipient information, or perform bump or touch actions with devices of the recipients. With less time spent on data entry, money transfer transactions according to the disclosed technology can be conducted in a fast and reliable manner.” Omojola, col. 3, ln. 50-60.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights