Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 2, 2026.
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260326 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because they recite “animating… at least one feature.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “animating… the at least one feature.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “requesting, from the processing server, donation information associated with the referred donations.” There is lack of antecedent basis for the term “the referred donations.” Does this refer to “the referral message” or to newly cited “referred donations”? For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “requesting, from the processing server, donation information associated with referred donations.” Claim 9 is similarly rejected.
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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 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.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of tracking cumulative donation amounts originating from a user’s referral, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 1, representative of claim 9, includes the following limitations:
Receiving a selection of a charitable cause, a direct contribution amount, and payment information of a user;
Generating an interactive element encoded with a unique identifier of the user;
Requesting donation information;
Receiving contribution data associated with the unique identifier;
Receiving a referred contribution amount, which is associated with the unique identifier and a unique identifier of each referred user;
Computing a referred contribution value based on plural categories including: an amount of time to achieve the referred contribution amount, a number of referred users, and a number of intermediate users, wherein each category has a different weighted value;
Determining a contribution level based on: the direct contribution amount, a total contribution amount, and the referred contribution value;
Receiving updated contribution data and updated user contribution levels, including indirect contributions;
Animating a feature of the graphical object based on the updated contribution data and updated user contribution levels.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A memory;
A computing device;
A processing server;
A remote computing device;
A display device;
Transmitting the selection, direct contribution amount, and payment information;
Transmitting a referral message including the interactive element;
Generating a graphical object that illustrates the determined contribution level and leaderboards ranking user contribution levels;
Displaying the graphical object.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
They add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Note that “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity can include both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as whole. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a computing device”, “a processing server”, “a remote computing device”, and “a display device” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a computing device”, “a processing server”, “a remote computing device”, and “a display device” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of “a memory”, “a computing device”, “a processing server”, “a remote computing device”, and “a display device” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “transmitting the selection, direct contribution amount, and payment information”, “transmitting a referral message including the interactive element”, and “displaying the graphical object” are extra solution activity that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. The limitations “transmitting the selection, direct contribution amount, and payment information”, “transmitting a referral message including the interactive element”, and “displaying the graphical object” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The “transmitting of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Symantec, TLI Communications, and MPEP 2106.05(d). The “displaying of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstron S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, a conclusion that the limitations “transmitting the selection, direct contribution amount, and payment information”, “transmitting a referral message including the interactive element”, and “displaying the graphical object” are well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported under Berkheimer.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of “generating a graphical object that illustrates the determined contribution level and leaderboards ranking user contribution levels” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of “generating a graphical object that illustrates the determined contribution level and leaderboards ranking user contribution levels” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstron S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites the contribution data includes a number of contributors, a number of contributed causes, a contribution amount for each referral level, a team contribution amount, and a number of team members, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites the contribution data includes a total contribution amount, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites the graphical object is an animated tree, which generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 7 recites receiving a reward for the user, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 7 also recites displaying the reward, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363.
Claim 8 recites the reward is based on the direct contribution amount and referred contribution amount, which is merely describing data and further defining the 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breeden et al. (US 2014/0358754), in view of Norman et al. (US 2007/0260605), and further in view of Savelli et al. (US 2015/0095137).
Claims 1, 9
Breeden discloses:
storing, in a memory (memory, see [0022]) of a computing device, program code for an application program (client application, see [0022]) executable by a processor of the computing device;
executing, by the processor (processor, see [0022]) of the computing device, the program code of the application program which causes the computing device to perform operations including:
receiving, by an input device interfaced with the computing device, at least a selection of a charitable cause (non-profit organization, see [0014]), a direct contribution amount (amount of funds, see [0014]), and payment information (account, see figure 1) from a user of the computing device (device, see [0021]);
transmitting (see figure 1), by a transmitter of the computing device, the selection of the charitable cause, the direct contribution amount, and the payment information to a processing server (donation service, see [0023]);
generating (create, see [0075]), by the processor of the computing device in response to transmitting the payment information, an interactive element (link, see [0071, 0075], figure 6) configured to execute the application program in association with the selected charitable cause;
transmitting, by the transmitter of the computing device, a referral message (e.g. email, text, post, see [0074], figure 6) to at least one remote computing device, the referral message including at least the interactive element (link, see [0071], figure 6) for executing the application program on the at least one remote computing device in association with the selected charitable cause;
requesting, from the processing server (donation service, see [0023]), donation information (e.g. user information of users, account information of users, notification pushed to user, see [0047-0051]) associated with the referred donations;
receiving, by a receiver of the computing device, contribution data (total donation amount, see figure 3) from the processing server, the contribution data including at least the direct contribution amount (donation amount of user, see figure 3);
receiving, by the receiver of the computing device, a referred contribution amount (donation amount of your friends, see [0072], figures 2C, 3) from the processing server in response to the request;
computing, by the processor of the computing device in response to the request, a referred contribution value (e.g. $45,000, see figure 2C) for the referred contribution amount of the contribution data associated with the unique identifier of the user, the referred contribution value being computed based on plural categories including: an amount of time (x axis on figure 3, times of donations, see [0025], figures 3, 8) taken to achieve the referred contribution amount, a number of referred users (e.g. 45 people, see figures 2C, 3) associated with the referred contribution amount, and a number of intermediate users (see figure 5A) between a referred user and an initial user;
determining, by the processor of the computing device, a contribution level (e.g. rank in top 95%, see figure 3) for the user of the computing device based on at least (i) the direct contribution amount (donation amount of user, see figure 3), (ii) a total contribution amount for the charitable cause (e.g. collected $678,932 this year, see figure 7), and (iii) the referred contribution value (donation amount of your friends, see figures 2C, 3) of the referred contribution amount for each of the plurality of referred users;
generating, by the processor of the computing device, a graphical object (see figure 3) having at least one feature that illustrates the determined contribution level of the user (your total donation amount, see figure 3) of the computing device and at least one or more leaderboards ranking user contribution levels (total donation amount of your friends, see figure 3) associated with the selected charitable cause; and
displaying, by a display device (see figure 3) interfaced with the computing device, the generated graphical object (see figure 3);
receiving, by the receiver of the computing device, updated contribution data and updated user contribution levels (process donation activity data, see [0036]), the updated contribution data including one or more indirect contributions (e.g. “on behalf of someone”, group campaign, third user donates because of second user who is not the first user, see [0060, 0069]) received in connection with the unique identifier of the referred user; and
animating, by the processor of the computing device, at least one feature of the graphical object (see figure 3) and the at least one or more leaderboards based on the updated contribution data and the updated user contribution levels and at least one object associated with the determined contribution level, wherein the at least one feature of the graphical object changes in size (line graph continues, tree grows, see figure 3, [0034]) as a result of the animation.
Breeden does not disclose:
the interactive element… device
the contribution data… user;
the referred… amount.
Norman teaches:
the interactive element (listing, see [0043, 0046]) being encoded with at least a unique identifier (identifier associated with the originator, see [0042]) associated with the user of the computer device;
the contribution data (amount for each referrer, see claim 12) associated with the unique identifier of the user;
the referred contribution amount being associated with the unique identifier of the user (identifier associated with the originator, see [0042]) of the computing device for each of a plurality of referred users associated with the at least one remote computing device which received the referral message, and a unique identifier of each referred user (e.g. identifiers for Chris, Mary, see figure 2 [0069-0070, 0082-0083]) having a referred contribution amount.
Breeden discloses a memory; a processor; receiving a charitable cause, contribution amount, and payment information; transmitting the selection to a server; generating an interactive element; transmitting a referral message; requesting donation information; receiving contribution data; receiving a referred contribution amount; computing a referred contribution value; determining a contribution level; generating a graphical object; displaying the graphical object; receiving updated contribution data; and animating the feature of the graphical object. Breeden does not disclose the interactive element encoded with an unique identifier, the contribution data associated with the unique identifier, and the referred contribution amount associated with the unique identifier and a unique identifier of each referred user, but Norman does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mobile giving of Breeden with the interactive element encoded with an unique identifier, the contribution data associated with the unique identifier, and the referred contribution amount associated with the unique identifier and a unique identifier of each referred user of Norman because 1) a need exists for enabling individuals to donate to non-profit organizations in an efficient manner (see Breeden [0001]); and 2) a need exists for streamlining the process of passing referrals (see Norman [0011]). Having the interactive element encoded with an unique identifier, the contribution data associated with the unique identifier, and the referred contribution amount associated with the unique identifier and a unique identifier of each referred user can help streamline the process of passing referrals because each user has their own identifier.
Breeden in view of Norman discloses the limitations above. Breeden in view of Norman does not disclose:
Wherein each category… value.
Savelli teaches:
wherein each category (category, see [0080, 0122]) has a different weighted value (a weight, weighted data points, see [0080, 0122]) that is included in the referred contribution value.
Breeden in view of Norman discloses a memory; a processor; receiving a charitable cause, contribution amount, and payment information; transmitting the selection to a server; generating an interactive element; transmitting a referral message; requesting donation information; receiving contribution data; receiving a referred contribution amount; computing a referred contribution value; determining a contribution level; generating a graphical object; displaying the graphical object; receiving updated contribution data; animating the feature of the graphical object, the interactive element encoded with an unique identifier, the contribution data associated with the unique identifier, and the referred contribution amount associated with the unique identifier and a unique identifier of each referred user. Breeden in view of Norman does not disclose each category has a different weighted value, but Savelli does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mobile giving of Breeden, in view of Norman, with the category has a different weighted value of Savelli because a need exists for monitoring which data has been acquired, and to coordinate and schedule data retrieval across online sites (see Savelli [0009]). Having each category with a different weighted value allows for monitoring across various categories.
Claims 2, 10
Furthermore, Breeden discloses:
the contribution data further includes at least one of: a number of contributors (e.g. 45 people, 10 persons, see figures 2C, 5A), a number of contributed causes, a contribution amount for each of a plurality of referral levels, a team contribution amount, and a number of team members.
Claims 4, 12
Furthermore, Breeden discloses:
the contribution data further includes the total contribution amount (total donation amount, see figure 3).
Claims 6, 14
Furthermore, Breeden discloses:
the at least one graphical object is an animated tree (graphic of a tree that grows each time a donation is made, see [0034]) that grows based on the direct contribution amount, the referred contribution amount, and the determined contribution level.
Claims 7, 15
Furthermore, Breeden discloses:
receiving, by the receiver of the computing device, a reward (rewards, see [0032]) for the user of the computing device; and
displaying, by the display device interfaced with the computing device, the received reward in the graphical illustration (graphically displayed badge, see [0032]).
Claims 8, 16
Furthermore, Breeden discloses:
the reward is based on a combination of the direct contribution amount and the referred contribution amount (donation activities, see [0032, 0090]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach requesting donation information receiving the referred contribution amount, and receiving a unique identifier of each referred user.
Please see revised rejection. Breeden discloses requesting, from the processing server (donation service, see [0023]), donation information (e.g. user information of users, account information of users, notification pushed to user, see [0047-0051]) associated with the referred donations. Examiner cites to the new reference Norman regarding the unique identifiers.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Mitchell (US 2017/0178174) discloses systems and methods to enable offer and rewards marketing and customer relationship management.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
Prosecution Insights