DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is
being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted on 01/19/2021 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application. Claim 19 is withdrawn. Claim 20 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
112
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments and finds said arguments and amendments to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 112 first paragraph is hereby withdrawn.
101
Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments and arguments unpersuasive.
As stated in the prior office action, the examiner submits that the Federal Circuit has found (see at least EPG v Alstom) that the collection, analysis, and display of certain results of collection and analysis to be a patent ineligible concept. The Court found that the process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, devoid of any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing said functions to be directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has found that the when the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools, that the claims fail to do more than merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas. The pending claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods that would generate new data and further do not invoke any inventive programming. The Courts have found that merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information to provide a humanly comprehensible amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis. The two part analysis has to take into account how the desired result is achieved. The examiner submits that the computers, networks, and displays as recited in the pending claims does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The pending claims do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, requires anything other than off the shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. The pending claims further fail to include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything other than generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguable inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea. The examiner further submits that the claims as currently recited fail recite more than a system and method for allocation of donation funds by a group of users, wherein said donations are automatically withdrawn and applied to associate categories as selected by said users.
For at least the reasoning provided above, the examiner submits that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
103
Due to Applicant’s arguments and amendments the previous office action is now moot and the claims have been given further searching and consideration. Consequently, please find a new rejection below addressing the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1–18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1–18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a method (claims 1-9) and a system (claims 10-18), where the system is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of organization and disbursement of donor funds associated with charities by:
facilitating, by a server system, category-wise donations to at least one charity account of a charity organization from a plurality of donors, wherein each category-wise donation is allocated for spending for a particular donation category of a plurality of donation categories associated with the charity organization;
receiving, by the server system, a request from the charity organization to spend for a first donation category of the plurality of donation categories from donations earmarked for a second donation category;
determining, by the server system, a set of donors who have donated for the second donation category based on a donation transaction history of the second donation category associated with the charity organization;
sending, by the server system, an authorization request signal to user devices of the set of donors for taking approval for disbursement from the second donation category for the first donation category; and
upon receiving successful authorization response from at least a threshold number of donors of the set of donors, facilitating, by the server system, spend for the first donation category from the second donation category;
updating, by the server system, a data structure that stores an identity of each donor that donated to the charity organization, a donation amount, a donation category for the donation amount, and a timestamp indicating a time at which the donation was made;
detecting, by the server system and based on payment-network transaction data, a merchant category code of a merchant associated with the requested spend, and validating whether the merchant category code is permitted for the first donation category;
receiving, by the server system, a digital spend receipt from the charity organization and extracting, by the server system, spend-transaction data including a spending amount, a transaction identifier, and the merchant category code;
generating, by the server system, a data structure mapping the spend-transaction data to donation-transaction data associated with a plurality of donors who donated to the second donation category;
determining, by the server system, donation utilization for the spend based on a first-in- first-out (FIFO) order of timestamps of the donation-transaction data; and
facilitating, by the server system, spend for the first donation category from the second donation category based on the FIFO-determined donation utilization.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., collecting, dispersing and monitoring of donation funds).
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “server system”, and “application programming interface” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A). Independent claim 10 is nearly identical to independent claim 1 and so the analysis for claim 1 also applies to claim 10.
Dependent claims 2–9 and 11-18 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobhani et al (US 2015/0006366) in view of Kingston et al (US 2021/0097550), and further in view of Cook et al (US 2018/0182000).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer-implemented method for monitoring donation transactions between donors and charity organizations, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a server system, a plurality of category-wise donations to at least one charity account of a charity organization from a plurality of donors, wherein each category-wise donation is to be allocated for spending for a particular donation category of a plurality of donation categories associated with the charity organization (see at least paragraphs [0146] and [0147] to Sobhani et al “the software can offer a selection from any or all of a local charity or charities, a state charity or charities, a national charity or charities, an international charity or charities, or other charity or charities. To provide a list of selectable local charities, for example, the software can solicit entry of a zip code. Based on an entered zip code, the software can, for example, search a database or databases to identify corresponding charities, and return a corresponding list for display via the interface”); receiving, by the server system, a request from the charity organization to spend for a first donation category of the plurality of donation categories from donations a second donation category (see at least paragraphs [0250] and [0251] to Sobhani et al “interface for allocation of funds, visually, showing the amount, and with easy user-interface UI or GUI. It can be based on percentage or absolute values using a ruler as adjuster on screen, or as ratio”); identifying, by the server system, the set of donors who have donated for the second donation category based on a donation transaction history of the second donation category associated with the charity organization (see at least paragraph [0274] to Sobhani et al “the total transaction numbers and dollar values for a user, a charity, a store, or combination of store giving to charity, or person to charity, or store selling to a person, or any combination of the above, or average or statistics or history of the above, recorded, stored, or presented, to any or all parties, per request or query”); sending, by the server system, an authorization request signal to user devices of the set of donors for taking approval for disbursement from the second donation category for the first donation category (see at least paragraph [0180] to Sobhani et al “prior to the completion of the checkout process. After the selection, the checkout is completed and the user is presented with the confirmation(s) for such a donation/transaction. In such an embodiment, a reference ID is generated by the donation agent (e.g., as a primary key to a database table) to associate with the transaction”); generating, by the server system, a data structure mapping the spend-transaction data to donation-transaction data associated with a plurality of donors who donated to the second donation category (see at least paragraph [0160] to Sobhani et al); and upon receiving successful authorization response from at least a threshold number of donors of the set of donors based on the FIFO-determined donation utilization(see at least paragraph [0238] to Sobhani et al), facilitating, by the server system, spend for the first donation category from the second donation category (see at least paragraph [0238] to Sobhani et al).
Sobhani et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the amount of funds specified by each donor, from among the plurality of donors;
limiting, by the server system, for each donation category from among the plurality of donation categories, an amount available to be spent by the charity organization for the donation category so that the charity organization is unable to spend more than the amount available for the donation category without approval from donors that have allocated corresponding category-wise donations;
However, Kingston et al discloses a system and method for a donor funded restricted line of credit, wherein the amount of funds specified by each donor, from among the plurality of donors(see at least paragraph [0042] to Kingston et al, wherein each donor may select the MCCs he wants his funds to be used for);
limiting, by the server system, for each donation category from among the plurality of donation categories, an amount available to be spent by the charity organization for the donation category so that the charity organization is unable to spend more than the amount available for the donation category without approval from donors that have allocated corresponding category-wise donations (see at least Figure 3, to Kingston et al and paragraph [0042] to Kingston et al, wherein teach donor may allocated an amount of funds to be allocated to each of his selected MCCs).
Sobhani et al and Kingston et al, in combination, do not appear to explicitly disclose detecting, by the server system and based on payment-network transaction data, a merchant category code of a merchant associated with the requested spend, and validating whether the merchant category code is permitted for the first donation category receiving, by the server system, a digital spend receipt from the charity organization and extracting, by the server system, spend-transaction data including a spending amount, a transaction identifier, and the merchant category code.
However, Cook et al discloses systems and methods for use in facilitating donation transactions to payment accounts, further comprising:
detecting, by the server system and based on payment-network transaction data, a merchant category code of a merchant associated with the requested spend, and validating whether the merchant category code is permitted for the first donation category (see at least paragraph [0040] to Cook et al); receiving, by the server system, a digital spend receipt from the charity organization and extracting, by the server system, spend-transaction data including a spending amount, a transaction identifier, and the merchant category code (see at least paragraph [0047] to Cook et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for automated online allocation of donations, as disclosed by Sobhani et al and the system and method for a donor funded restricted line of credit, as taught by Kingston et al, further in view of systems and methods for use in facilitating donation transactions to payment accounts, as taught by Cook et al, in order to provide a more transparent and efficient method of allocating and tracking the usage donated funds, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating and storing, by the server system, a data structure for mapping spend transaction data of the particular donation category to information associated with a number of donation transactions of the particular donation category in a database (see at least paragraph [0189] to Sobhani et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the server system, a registration request from the charity organization, the registration request comprising charity profile data and the plurality of donation categories associated with the charity organization (see at least paragraph [0167] to Sobhani et al); facilitating, by the server system, issuance of the at least one charity account to the charity organization (see at least paragraph [0277] to Sobhani et al); and implementing, by the server system, an application programming interface (API) at a user device of a donor to select the charity organization for transferring the category-wise donations, wherein the selection is based at least on the plurality of donation categories associated with the charity organization (see at least paragraph [0176] to Sobhani et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: implementing, by the server system, an application programming interface (API) at the charity organization for spending donation money associated with the particular donation category of the plurality of donation categories (see at least paragraph [0182] to Sobhani et al); receiving, by the server system, a receipt of spend transaction made by the charity organization for the particular donation category (see at least paragraph [0183] and [0307] to Sobhani et al); and upon receiving the receipt of spend transaction, determining, by the server system, a number of donors, whose donations are utilized in the spend transaction for the particular donation category, wherein the number of donors is associated to the number of donation transactions, and wherein the number of donation transactions are utilized in a chronological order of occurrence of donating event (see at least Figures 12 and 13 to Sobhani et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the threshold number of donors is based at least on an urgency value associated with a spending event for the first donation category (see at least paragraph [0176] and [0184] to Sobhani et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the information associated with the number of donation transactions comprise at least transaction identifiers, donation amounts, timestamp information associated with each donation transaction, donor profile information, and information of the charity organization, and wherein the spend transaction data comprises at least a transaction identifier, a spending amount, the particular donation category, merchant information, and charity profile information of the charity organization (see at least paragraph [0177] and Figure 10, to Sobhani et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the charity profile data comprises at least a charity transactional archive (see at least paragraph [0162] to Sobhani et al), a credence rating of the charity organization, and a unique identifier of the charity organization (see at least Figure 10 to Sobhani et al “charity ID”), and wherein the plurality of donation categories is associated with charity donation restrictions, which are imposed by charity members (see at least paragraph [0240] to Sobhani et al “categories of charities or restrictions”).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the charity donation restrictions comprise spending restrictions related to one or more of merchants, a merchant category, a product, a product category, and an amount of spend (see at least paragraph [0240] to Sobhani et al “categories of charities or restrictions”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: determining, by the server system, a donation utilization corresponding to each of the number of donors, wherein the determination of the donation utilization is based on a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) method (see at least paragraph [0159] to Sobhani et al)re; and providing, by the server system, a notification message to each of the number of donors for rating the charity organization, the notification message comprising at least information of the donation utilization corresponding to each of the number of donors (see at least paragraph [0160] to Sobhani et al “The charities' overhead and types of fund usage or transparencies are also listed for users' review, e.g., as a portal for charities or comparison table, or can be searchable for topics, emphasis, goals, location, budget, overhead percentage, and rating, by the user, from our web site”).
Claims 10-18 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a request originating from the charity organization to transact an amount for the first donation category to be charged to the charity account; and determining that funds allocated to the first donation category in the charity account are insufficient to cover the requested amount, wherein the authorization request signal is sent to user devices of the set of donors responsive to the determination that the funds allocated to the first donation category in the charity account are insufficient to cover the requested amount (see at least paragraph [0036] to Kingston et al, wherein the credit card processing platform may initiate an alert to a donor that the customer has engaged in a purchase greater than the donor allocated amount).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627