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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative has amended the independent claims 23, 37 and 46 and
stated that the claims now recite statutory subject matter.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion.
In response, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because :
The additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements of a “data storage”, a “computing device”, an “application”, and “a server which includes a contribution module, a matching module, the server also containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device.
These additional elements of a computing device and a server taken individually or as a whole are each seen as general purpose computer or a computer system (see the applicant’s specification).
These claimed elements are noted to perform routine computer functions such as receiving data, matching data, determining data and providing data.
The additional elements of a server and a computing device are seen each as a computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such do not amount to significantly more. These devices are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves on the additional elements, the applicant is merely determining a winning competition.
The additional elements are then applied to the abstract idea. The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Accordingly, the claims fail to recite statutory subject matter
A 35 USC 101 rejection based on the claims as currently amended is found below.
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 23-40 and 42-50 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 37 is directed to a method. Claims 23 and 46 are directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims recite the following limitations as abstract idea, absent the bold language or words.
Claim 23 recites: A donation facilitation system comprising:
a data storage that stores content;
a computing device, of a customer, configured to execute at least one application associated with the customer, and containing at least one processor in communication with a network wherein the application is stored on the computing device ;
a server containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device, wherein the server includes information about at least one charity, and communicates with the at least one application of a provider, and further wherein the at least one application is associated with the provider;
wherein the server is configured to receive a challenge, from the at least one application, wherein the execution of the at least one application is associated with a purchase of a good or a service, wherein the provider receives the challenge for a provider contribution to the at least one charity associated with a customer portfolio, and further wherein the server include a contribution module, a matching module, and a set of match data;
a sweepstakes number is associated with the customer, a merchant, the provider, the at least one charity, or an individual;
a provider payment system stored in the server;
a pool of contributions, wherein the pool of contributions comprises at least one customer contribution, the provider contribution, or any combination thereof;
a matching sweepstakes number, wherein the matching sweepstakes number is selected
by a sweepstakes system on the server from the set of match data wherein the match data comprises a plurality of sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer;
and wherein the sweepstakes numbers are generated from the application on the computing device and are associated with the customer purchase; and
a recipient contribution, wherein the recipient contribution is determined the contribution module and the matching module, and further wherein the recipient contribution is at least part of the pool of contributions, and is provided to a recipient, wherein the recipient is the at least one charity, the customer, the individual, or any combination thereof;
Claim 24 recites wherein the pool of contributions is based on a rounded purchase amount, a set amount, a percentage of the purchase amount, or a customer selected amount.
Claim 25 recites wherein the recipient is selected by at least one customer.
Claim 26 recites wherein the customer joins at least one other supporter in the sweepstakes and jointly wins the pool of contributions.
Claims 25 and 26 recite the types of entities involved.
Claim 27 recites wherein the sweepstakes number is at least partially based on the purchase amount. Claim 27 recites a number to be provided to/by one of the involved entities.
Claim 28 recites wherein the provider contribution is a fixed percentage of the purchase or a fixed fee based upon the purchase. Claim 28 recites a contribution amount.
Claim 29 recites wherein the information about at least one charity is stored in at least one of the data storage of the computing device, or the server associated with at least one of the provider and the customer. Claim 29 merely recites the storing of data or information.
Claim 30 recites wherein the recipient is a charity based on a likelihood that the customer would donate to that charity, wherein the likelihood is determined by computing techniques of the application comparing all charities or causes associated with the customer to all charities or causes associated with the provider to determine a charity or cause that the customer would likely contribute to. Claim 30 also recites a type of entities involved.
Claim 31 recites wherein the provider contribution is based on at least one of a fixed challenge amount or a rounding amount based on the purchase price, the price of the purchased good or service, or a combination thereof. Claim 31 merely recites a contribution amount..
Claim 32 recites wherein the challenge is based on at least one of a predetermined value, a fixed percentage of the price, or a fixed fee per transaction. Claim 32 merely recites a challenge similar to a contribution amount.
Claim 33 recites wherein the contribution is stored in the server and the charities in the customer portfolio are updated and associated with preferences of the customer. Claim 33 merely recites the storing of data.
Claim 34 recites the server further comprises the portfolio of customer charities, a portfolio of provider charities, or both; and wherein the portfolio of customer charities includes at least one charity. Claim 34 merely recites the storing of data in a computing device or accessory or memory.
Claim 35 recites wherein the recipient is a donor advised fund that distributes to the at least one charity. Claim 35 recites a type of entities involved.
Claim 36 recites wherein the provider comprises at least one of a financial institution, a payment processor, a payment network, a card network, a merchant, or an individual. Claim 36 recites a type of entities involved.
Claim 37 recites: A method of facilitating donations a competition comprising the following steps:
providing a data storage that stores content, a computing device of a customer configured to execute at least one application associated with the customer and containing at least one processor in communication with a network, and a server containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device, wherein the server is configured to receive a challenge from the at least one application and further wherein the server includes a contribution module, a matching module, and a set of match data;
charging, by a provider via a payment system store, a customer a price for a good or service when the customer purchases said good or service using the application executed on the computing device;
challenging the provider to make a provider contribution, wherein the provider contribution is part of the price or an addition to the price, and wherein the challenge is made in response to the customer purchase;
associating one or more sweepstakes numbers with the customer, or the provider;
generating a pool of contributions wherein the pool of contributions comprises at least one customer contribution, the provider contribution, or any combination thereof, wherein the customer contribution is based on the customer purchase;
determining a plurality of winning sweepstakes numbers;
comparing the one or more sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer and the plurality of winning sweepstakes numbers to determine a winning match; and
providing a recipient contribution, wherein the recipient contribution is at least part of the pool of contributions, and is provided to a recipient, wherein the recipient is the at least one charity, the customer, an individual designated by the customer, or any combination thereof.
Claim 38 recites wherein the provider contribution is based on at least one of a fixed challenge or a rounding challenge based on the customer purchase. Claim 38 merely provides a contribution amount.
Claim 39 recites at least one of a portfolio of customer charities, a portfolio of provider charities, and the recipient. Claim 39 merely recites a portfolio.
Claim 40 recites wherein the computing device comprises at least one of a mobile device, laptop, electronic notebook, desktop computer, smartwatch, tablet, smart phone, or a smart watch. Claim 40 merely recites known devices.
Claim 42 recites the recipient contribution is provided to a bank account of the recipient.
Claim 43 recites wherein the recipient contribution is provided to a bank account of the recipient.
Claims 42 and 43 recite a contribution to be provided by a recipient.
Claim 44 recites the provider contribution is part of the purchase amount or an addition to the purchase amount.
Claims 44 recites a contribution to be provided by a provider.
Claim 45 recites wherein the one or more sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer includes a unique identification of the customer. Claim 45 merely recites a sweepstakes number which is merely data.
Claim 46 recites A competition facilitation system comprising:
a data storage that stores content;
a computing device, of a customer, configured to execute at least one application associated with the customer, and containing at least one processor in communication with a network;
wherein the application is stored on the computing device;
a server containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device, and communicating with the at least one application of a provider;
wherein the server is configured to receive a challenge from the at least one application, wherein the execution of the at least one application is associated with a purchase of a good or a service, and wherein the provider receives the challenge for a provider contribution, and further wherein the server includes a contribution module, a matching module, and a set of match data;
a plurality of competition numbers associated with the customer based on the purchase of the good or the service by the customer, wherein the plurality of competition numbers is a provider payment system stored in the server;
the matching module determine a et of winning competition numbers from the set of match data, wherein the set of match data comprises the plurality of competition numbers and a set of winning competition numbers; and
a winning competition contribution, wherein the winning competition contribution is provided via the contribution module to a customer-designated recipient, when the set of winning competition numbers matches one or more of the plurality of competition numbers associated with the customer, wherein the customer-designated recipient is the customer, another individual designated by the customer, at least one charity associated with a customer portfolio, at least one charity associated with the provider, or any combination thereof.
Claim 47 recites wherein the plurality of competition numbers associated with the customer, are a plurality of two-digit numbers derived from the purchase amount, a rounded amount based on the purchase amount, a unique identification of the customer, or any combination thereof
Claim 48 recites wherein the winning competition contribution comprises at least the customer contribution, a group of consumer contributions, the provider contribution, or any combination thereof. Claim 48 merely recites a contribution amount to be provided to a recipient.
Claim 49 recites wherein the winning competition contribution is provided to a bank account of the customer-designated recipient. Claim 49 merely recites a contribution amount to be provided to a recipient.
Claim 50 recites wherein the set of winning competition numbers comprises a series of two-digit numbers, wherein the series is from two to ten two- digit numbers.
Claim 50 merely recites a description of winning numbers.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The claim concept also falls into the category of a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of :
“generating a pool of contributions, determining a winning sweepstakes number from a plurality of sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer, and providing a recipient contribution, wherein the recipient contribution is at least part of the pool of contributions, and is provided to a recipient, wherein the recipient is the at least one charity, the customer, the individual, or any combination thereof”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
The limitations of a “data storage”, a “computing device”, an “application”, and “a server which includes a contribution module, a matching module, the server also containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device, wherein the server includes information about at least one charity, and communicates with the at least one application a provider, and further wherein the at least one application is associated with the provider, and wherein the server is configured to receive a challenge, from the at least one application, wherein the execution of the at least one application is associated with a purchase of a good or a service…” merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “server with contribution module and matching module, containing at least one processor in communication with the computing device” and “the sever is configured to receive a challenge form the at least one application” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate data among computers "now available or later developed may be used” which is properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device.
Using a server in communication with a computing device in resulting performing various functions amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering data and transmitting data - see MPEP Z106.05(g}. The result of storing and receiving data also amounts to a data gathering function.
Performing steps or functions by a generic machine, machine learning or device or server or computer processors with memories merely limits the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or processor or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes receiving data and a server communication with a computing device. These functions are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors which receive data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions to arrive at a final function of providing to a contribution to a recipient.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a server and a computing device in a network for allowing communications as claimed does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer collecting data and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “application”, “server” and “computing device”, a server with modules are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 23, 37 and 46 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“a pool of contributions, wherein the pool of contributions wherein the pool of contributions is stored in the payment system and further comprises at least one customer contribution, the provider contribution, or any combination thereof, a matching sweepstakes number, wherein the matching sweepstakes number is selected by a sweepstakes system on the server from the set of match data, wherein the match data comprises a plurality of sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer, and wherein the sweepstakes numbers are generated from the application on the computing device and are associated with the customer purchase, and a recipient contribution, wherein the recipient contribution is determined the contribution module and the matching module, and further wherein the recipient contribution is at least part of the pool of contributions, and is provided to a recipient, wherein the recipient is the at least one charity, the customer, the individual, or any combination thereof” as recited in independent claim 23.
“generating a pool of contributions in the payment system on the server, wherein the pool of contributions comprises at least one customer contribution, the provider contribution, or any combination thereof, wherein the customer contribution is based on the customer purchase, determining a plurality of sweepstakes numbers associated with the customer, transforming
the set of match data by the contribution module and the matching module, wherein the transformed data provides a recipient, wherein the recipient is at least one charity, the customer, and individual designated by the customer or any combination thereof, and providing a recipient contribution, wherein the recipient contribution is at least part of the pool of contributions, and is provided to a recipient, wherein the recipient is the at least one charity, the customer, the individual, or any combination thereof” as recited in independent claim 37.
“a plurality of competition numbers associated with the customer based on the purchase of the good or the service by the customer, wherein the plurality of competition numbers is a plurality of two-digit numbers; a provider payment system stored in the server: the matching module determines a set of winning competition numbers selected from the set of match data, wherein the set of match data comprises the plurality of competition numbers and a set of winning competition numbers, and a winning competition contribution, wherein the winning competition contribution is provided via the contribution module to a customer-designated recipient, when the set of winning competition numbers is determined by the matching module to match one or more of the plurality of competition numbers associated with the customer, wherein the customer-designated recipient is the customer, another individual designated by the customer, at least one charity associated with a customer portfolio, at least one charity associated with the provider, or any combination thereof” as recited in independent claim 46.
Tietzen et al. (US 20150220958 A1) disclose a system, device and method for a loyalty
program. The method includes receiving, at least one processor associated with a
transaction processing system, transaction data associated with a transaction between a customer and a merchant; upon or concurrently with clearing the transaction, determining, with the at least one processor, a membership classification for the transaction; and generating, at the at least one processor, signals for accruing an interchange fee based on the membership classification and the transaction data.
Baldwin et al (US 20150193845 A1) disclose a method, system and program product comprise communicating with a gift purchase system at least a user's selection of a gift for a recipient and communicating with a condition/challenge system at least the user's criteria for the recipient to receive the gift. The condition/challenge system is at least configured for communicating with a computing device of the recipient, presenting, to the recipient, displays associated with the criteria, receiving the recipient's response, determining a measure of completion from the responses, and communicating the measure of completion to a fulfillment system being configured for communicating a portion of the gift, at least in part based on the measure completion.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693