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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/01/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 11 is amended
b. Claims 1-10, 19-20 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 11-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites the limitation "overlaying, by the donation agent ... as not interfere with the transaction screens," however, in the drawing submitted on 01/31/2023, Fig. 1C shows the donation screen on top of the transaction screen. However, the donation screen overlaying on top of the transaction screen blocks the total amount or the type of item being purchased. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude, in Fig. 1C, the donation screen overlaying on top of the transaction screen interferes with the transaction screen, as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine what item or the price of item or the total amount for the purchase. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation “overlaying” would be rendering screen such that one in the skill in the art is able to see the total transaction amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11-18rejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation ""... alongside of or overlaid on top of transaction screens ...", the claim further recites "overlaying, by the donation agent ... as not interfere with the transaction screens". The claim recites contradictory statements, as the first part of the claim 1 recites "... alongside of or overlaid on top of transaction screens ..."; one in the ordinary skill in the art would conclude that screens can be rendered alongside or overlaid on top of another screen. However, claim 11 further recites "wherein rendering further includes: overlaying, by the donation agent, the donation screens"; on in the ordinary skill in the art would conclude that screen can only be rendered by overlaying on top of another screen. Thus, one in the ordinary skill in the art cannot determine if rendering includes either alongside or overlaid or just overlaid on top of a screen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 11, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (WO 2023012530 A1), in view of Benkreira (US 20220067675 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Jain discloses:
receiving a wallet identifier for a charity wallet and a link to a summary page for a charity associated with the charity wallet; [see at least (00152) The system 10 may also include the following feature: News Feed - this will show information from the charitable or religious organisations the user is following and donating to, providing insight into the usage of their donated funds and other updates]
rendering, by a donation agent, donation screens associated with donating to the charity on a display of a terminal alongside of or overlaid on top of transaction screens during a transaction at the terminal, wherein the donation screens are rendered independent and separate from transaction workflow screens of the terminal; [see at least (0024) Preferably, the donation device is adapted to execute a POS terminal application for donation transactions and communication with the server 16.(0063) Figure 2 schematic diagram of a donation device in the donation system of Figure 1. (0064) Figure 3 schematic diagram of another donation device in the donation system of Figure 1. (00109) The donation device 200 … enable the end-user (Donors) to make a purchase and can then round up the purchase amount to $1, $5, $10 so the round-up amount can be donated to the charity or religious organization. (reads on: the donation screen is rendered after the user makes the selection to round-up the purchase amount)]
wherein rendering further includes: overlaying, by the donation agent, the donation screens on top of the transaction screens and positioned so as to not interfere with the transaction screens; and [see at least Fig. 3, (0079) the donation device 200 as shown in Figure 3 is adapted to execute a POS terminal application for donation transactions and communication with the server 16]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably
be expected to draw therefrom. In Figure 3 of Jain the POS terminal shows the total transaction amount and an option for user to donate. Here, it is reasonable to infer that both transaction screen and option to donate are rendered without interfering. In other words, Jain’s Figure 3 shows a donation screen overlaid on “so as not to interfere with the transaction” screen in reasonably the same manner and extent as the donation screen and transaction screen are shown in applicant’s Figure 1C. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation consistent with how it is represented in applicant’s disclosure, particularly Figure 1C
processing, by the donation agent, one or more options of the donation screens, wherein at least one option permits a customer using a keypad to enter a particular donation amount and select another option for the particular donation amount to be processed by the donation agent; [see at least Fig. 3 (0095) Figure 3, there is provide a schematic diagram of a donation device 200. (00103) the donation device 100, 200 comprises a keypad. The donation device 200 will then prompt the user to enter the donation amount in step 252. After receiving the amount, the donation device 200 will prompt the user to select the donation frequency. The user can select either a one-off donation in step 254 or a recurrent donation frequency such as such as weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quarterly or yearly in 256.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably
be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that in order for the user to enter donation amount, the user would need to use the keypad to enter the donation amount. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
reporting a donation amount received from a donation entry screen to a transaction manager of the terminal, wherein the donation agent communicates with the transaction manager through a single API call to add a line item to a transaction running total for a charitable donation; [see at least (0096) The donation device 100, 200 and server 16 may exchange and access data using an API gateway authorisation with JWT tokenisation. (reads on: the donation device uses an API) (00121) the donation device 200 will calculate the final purchase price based on both the purchase amount and the donation amount and display the final price along with other payment details on the donation device 200 in Step 285. The user may then proceed or amend the payment details.]
Jain disclose performing donation, however, Jain does not disclose discloses:
providing the wallet identifier and the donation amount to a server for the server to purchase a second amount of cryptocurrency using a fiat currency associated with the donation amount and for the server to transfer the second amount of cryptocurrency from a server wallet to the charity wallet over a blockchain.
However, Benkreira discloses purchasing cryptocurrency:
providing the wallet identifier and the donation amount to a server for the server to purchase a second amount of cryptocurrency using a fiat currency associated with the donation amount and for the server to transfer the second amount of cryptocurrency from a server wallet to the charity wallet over a blockchain [see at least Fig. 4 reference 294-298. (0086) Method 290 may include communicating 294 in real time with multiple cryptocurrency exchange servers of respective multiple cryptocurrency exchanges over the communication network to identify a cryptocurrency exchange from the multiple cryptocurrency exchanges having a best cryptocurrency exchange rate for converting the chosen cryptocurrency to the fiat currency]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Jain to include the elements of Benkreira. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to convert (i.e. purchase) cryptocurrency with the donation amount taught by Jain using the converting technique taught by Benkreira, in order to perform donation using cryptocurrency. Jain discloses performing donation using fiat currency. Benkreira teaches converting currency. Because both Jain, as well as Benkreira are in the field of completing transaction and the converting technique as taught by Benkreira would have used the donated fiat currency of Jain. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Jain, as well as Benkreira would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Jain/Benkreira.
Regarding Claims 14. Jain, Benkreira discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Jain further discloses:
wherein receiving further includes obtaining the summary page using the link and rendering the summary page in the donation screens. [see at least (00152) The system 10 may also include the following feature: News Feed - this will show information from the charitable or religious organisations the user is following and donating to, providing insight into the usage of their donated funds and other updates.]
Regarding Claims 15. Jain, Benkreira discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Jain further discloses:
wherein rendering further includes rendering a donation activation screen alongside transaction screens associated with a start of the transaction and during the transaction. [see at least (0069) Figure 8 is a use case diagram showing another application implemented on a donation device in the form of a POS payment device in an embodiment of the donation system of Figure 1]
Claims 12-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, in view of Benkreira, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sobhani (US 20150006426 A1).
Regarding Claim 12. Jain, Benkreira discloses the limitations of Claim 11. The combination of Jain, in view of Benkreira discloses performing donation. However, the above combination Jain, Benkreira does not disclose:
receiving a new wallet identifier for a new wallet of a new charity and a new link to a new summary page for the new charity from the server; and
replacing the wallet identifier and the link with the new wallet identifier and the new link for subsequent transactions on the terminal.
However, Sobhani discloses receiving wallet identifier:
receiving a new wallet identifier for a new wallet of a new charity and a new link to a new summary page for the new charity from the server; and [see at least (0174) FIG. 1 is for one embodiment, as an example, for method of consumer/user choosing a charity for directing donation. The user can add more to the donation. The money comes from the store or merchant. The user is sent an invitation to join our charity network.]
replacing the wallet identifier and the link with the new wallet identifier and the new link for subsequent transactions on the terminal. [see at least (0174) FIG. 1 is for one embodiment, as an example, for method of consumer/user choosing a charity for directing donation. The user can add more to the donation. The money comes from the store or merchant. The user is sent an invitation to join our charity network.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Jain, Benkreira to include the elements of Sobhani. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform donation to a specific charity. Jain, Benkreira discloses performing donation using fiat currency. Sobhani teaches allowing the user to choose single or multiple charities. Because Jain, Benkreira, as well as Sobhani are implemented in an environment to perform donation, and the references addresses performing donation to a charity, and the selection of charities as taught by Sobhani would have available to the technique for performing donation of Jain, Benkreira. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Jain, Benkreira, as well as Sobhani would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Jain, Benkreira/Sobhani.
Regarding Claims 13. Jain, Benkreira, Sobhani discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Sobhani further discloses:
iterating to the rendering for each subsequent transaction. [see at least (0181) An embodiment, as for example depicted in FIG. 7b, a donation interface is displayed to the customer after the checkout confirmation. (0181) In one embodiment, as for example depicted in FIG. 7 c, the donation interface is displayed after the checkout process]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Jain, Benkreira, Sobhani to include additional elements of Sobhani. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform donation efficiently. Jain, Benkreira, and Sobhani discloses performing donation using fiat currency. Sobhani further teaches displaying donation interface. Because Jain, Benkreira, as well as Sobhani are implemented in an environment to perform donation, and the POS system of Jain, Benkreira, and Sobhani is analogous to the donation steps of Sobhani that performs donation and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Sobhani. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 16. Jain, Benkreira discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Jain further discloses:
wherein rendering the donation entry screen overlaid on top of the transaction screens in response to activation of the donation activation screen. [see at least Fig. 3 (0095) Referring to Figure 3, there is provide a schematic diagram of a donation device 200. (00106) The donation device 100, 200 is adapted to implement PCI compliant mobile payment solutions for charity and religious organisations. The donation device 100, 200 is able to improve payment efficiencies and reduce transaction costs.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably
be expected to draw therefrom. Figure 3 the POS terminal shows the total transaction amount and an option for user to donate. Here, it is reasonable to infer that both transaction screen and option to donate are rendered without interfering. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17. Jain, Benkreira, Sobhani discloses the limitations of Claim 16. Jain further discloses:
wherein rendering the donation entry screen further includes providing a keypad for entry of the donation amount within the donation entry screen. [see at least Fig. 3 (00103) Preferably, the donation device 100, 200 comprises a touch screen. In one embodiment, the donation device 100, 200 comprises a keypad]
PNG
media_image2.png
945
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 18. Jain, Benkreira, Sobhani discloses the limitations of Claim 17. Sobhani further discloses:
wherein rendering the donation entry screen further includes rendering a predefined number of recent donation amounts made to the charity within the donation entry screen. [see at least (0177) FIG. 4 is for one embodiment … It shows the recent activities and dates for donations and transactions]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Jain, Benkreira, Sobhani to include additional elements of Sobhani. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform donation efficiently. Jain, Benkreira, and Sobhani discloses performing donation using fiat currency. Sobhani further teaches displaying donation history. Because Jain, Benkreira, as well as Sobhani are implemented in an environment to perform donation, and the POS system of Jain, Benkreira, and Sobhani is analogous to the system for displaying donation history of Sobhani that performs donation and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Sobhani. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
US 20240119792 A1 TIETZEN; Terrance Patrick et al. Wagerer Directed Donee Donation Defined By Bookmaker Donor - If a wagerer places a wager with a booking entity and if the possible outcome actually occurs such that the wagerer wins the wager, and if the possible outcome actually occurred at a time when the probability of the possible outcome actually occurring as set by the booking entity did not exceed a predetermined winning odds threshold, then the booking entity makes a donation to an affinity entity selected by the wagerer, where the donation is an amount derived using a currency amount of the wager, and at least one of the probability of the outcome actually occurring at the time when the outcome actually occurred and the predetermined winning odds threshold.
US 20230005027 A1 TIETZEN; Terrance Patrick et al. DETECTING AND TRIGGERING A PREVENTATIVE OPERATION MODE CHANGE IN A LOYALTY PROGRAM - Potential impending disaster information is received for a potential impending disaster including an event impact value for an extent of the potential impending disaster, a response value for a relief effort for the potential impending disaster, and a donation impact value for effectiveness of the response value. A detection is made, using an artificial intelligence engine, of the response value, of the donation impact value, and of at least one redirection trigger from the potential impending disaster information. Upon the detection of the at least one redirection trigger, a redirection mode is configured. Data is received for a transaction between a customer and a merchant. A determination is made from information from the transaction of a donation amount and a location associated with the transaction. When configured to operate in the redirection mode, generating signals to cause accrual of: at least a portion of the donation amount to a redirection account based on the location associated with the transaction, and any remaining portion of the donation amount to one or more defined donation accounts based on charity catchment area parameters. After the donation amount and the location associated with the transaction are determined, data fields derived from the transaction are received that include: first data for the transaction defined using a first merchant account, and second, different data for the same transaction defined using a second merchant account. Information is transmitted to facilitate a donation of the donation amount to a charity.
US 20220036323 A1 Sasaki; Yu et al. ELECTRONIC WALLET ALLOWING VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXPIRATION DATE - A computer-implemented system and method uses a processor of a device of an expiring virtual currency (EVC) wallet user. An EVC transaction is retrieved that is associated with a blockchain and addressed to an address associated with the EVC wallet. The EVC transaction comprises an expiration date for the EVCs, as part of virtual currency user rules (VCURs). If the expiration date of the EVCs has passed, the method automatically, and without user intervention, transfers the EVCs to a transferee designated in the VCURs.
US 20210366004 A1 KAWASAKI; Takamasa MONEY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, MONEY MANAGEMENT METHOD, DONATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, DONATION MANAGEMENT METHOD AND PROGRAM - To enable the management of monetary flows, a money management system comprising: a token issuing unit that issues a token of a blockchain according to an amount of transferred money from a transferor to a transferee; a token transfer processing unit that transfers the token in response to a transfer of all or part of the transferred money from the transferee; a transaction information acquisition unit that acquires transaction information indicating a transaction between accounts in a financial institution; a verification processing unit that verifies a correspondence between the transferred token and the transaction.
US 20200311790 A1 Keren; Yoav System, Device, and Method of Protected Electronic Commerce and Electronic Financial Transactions - System, device, and method of protected electronic commerce and electronic financial transactions. A method includes: analyzing (i) content of an online destination that sells an asset to an end-user, and (ii) data about ownership in the online destination, and (iii) meta-data about that content; and determining that an offering to sell that asset to the end-user is fraudulent. The system further provides digital tokens or crypto-currency, that end-users should pay in order to submit a user-report about a possible scam. The collected crypto-currency tokens are used by the system, to reward a user that submitted a scam report that turned out to be correct, to fund operations of a fraud-prevention entity, to fund guarantee payments to defrauded end-users, and for other purposes. The system generates authenticity stamps for online venues and for crypto-currency wallets that are determined to be legitimate.
US 20160034936 A1 BRYANT, III; Thomas et al. SOCIAL-REFERRAL NETWORK METHODS AND APPARATUS - A computer implemented method, apparatus and computer readable medium for monetizing online referral social networks. The online referral social network system confirms a particular online referral social network member indicated in one or more communications for registering a user as having referred the user to the online referral social network is a member of said online referral social network. A referral commission is determined and paid the particular identified referring member.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “The amended claims provide a specific technical solution through an improved software architecture that addresses the identified technical problems. As described in the specification: System 100 integrates seamlessly and nearly transparently into the transaction workflow of a terminal 120. The donation screens and workflow are independent and separate from the transaction workflow. Integration is achieved through a single API call between the donation agent 124 and transaction manager 123 for purposes of communicating a line-item to add to the transaction running total for a charitable donation including any added service fee. Minimal changes are needed to the transaction manager 123 and no changes are required to the transaction workflow for purposes of achieving donation-based transaction integration.” The specific technical implementation recited in the amended claims is supported by the specification: “the sub-screen can be overlayed on top of and positioned by the donation agent 124 so as to not interfere with the transaction interface screens “and "The sub-screen can also include a keypad for the customer to enter a donation amount along with an enter or 'OK' option.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Technical solutions are not an eligibility criterion. (See MPEP 2106.04-07). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Prong 1: The Examiner incorrectly characterized the claims as directed to "making donations" as an abstract idea. However, the amended claims are not directed to the abstract concept of making donations, but rather to a specific technical implementation of donation processing integrated into transaction terminals. The claims recite specific technical elements including overlay positioning technology, keypad processing functionality, and API integration architecture. Prong 2: The additional elements integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims recite: “A specific software architecture with independent donation screens that are "overlaid on top of the transaction screens and positioned so as to not interfere with the transaction screens"" Technical processing of donation screen options including keypad functionality for donation amount entry " Technical integration through a single API call between specific software components " Cryptocurrency wallet-to-wallet transfers over blockchain technology These elements constitute "a specific technical improvement to transaction terminal technology by enabling seamless donation integration without disrupting core transaction flows through a particular software architecture. Step 2B Analysis - Inventive Concept The amended claims provide significantly more than any abstract idea through: 1. Specific Technical Architecture: The donation agent renders screens "overlaid on top of the transaction screens and positioned so as to not interfere with the transaction screens" with specific processing of donation screen options including keypad functionality. 2. Unconventional Integration Method: The single API call integration between donation agent and transaction manager represents an unconventional approach to maintaining separate workflows while achieving seamless integration. 3. Blockchain Implementation: The use of blockchain for cryptocurrency transfers provides enhanced security and transparency, as described: "The donations are made via cryptocurrency wallet-to-wallet transactions which incur minimal fees over the BC, leave audit trails, maintain ledgers, and provide enhanced security." Blockchain Technology Argument The amended claims do not merely use blockchain as a generic computer implementation. Instead, the blockchain implementation provides specific technical advantages: "wallet-to-wallet transactions which incur minimal fees over the BC, leave audit trails, maintain ledgers, and provide enhanced security. Additionally, funds can be transferred worldwide without fiat currency conversion fees." This represents a meaningful application of blockchain technology that improves the donation processing system itself. Rebuttal to Examiner's Remarks The Examiner's characterization of the claims as merely "making donations" fails to recognize the specific technical improvements recited in the amended claims. The claims are analogous to eligible cases like Core Wireless, which improved UI displays, and Finjan, which provided specific improvements to computer functionality. The amended claims here improve transaction terminal technology through a specific software architecture that enables seamless donation integration without disrupting core transaction flows, with specific technical elements including overlay positioning, keypad processing, and API integration.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on current amended claims. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: Distinguishing Features Not Taught by the References The combination of Lindsay (Jain) and Benkreira fails to teach or suggest the specific technical architecture claimed in the amended claims. The amended claims recite a donation agent that renders donation screens "independent and separate from transaction workflow screens" while "overlaying the donation screens on top of the transaction screens and positioned so as to not interfere with the transaction screens" and "processing one or more options of the donation screens, wherein at least one option permits the customer using a keypad to enter a particular donation amount."
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on current amended claims. Additionally, Lindsay (Jain) reference Fig. 3, discloses transaction amount, and option for customer to donate to charity. Therefore, the combination of Lindsay (Jain) and Benkreira discloses the limitation of claim 11. See the rejection above. Thus, the updated rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Lindsay (Jain) Deficiencies: Lindsay teaches an integrated donation system where donation options are part of the main transaction workflow. Specifically, Lindsay's system shows donation screens that are rendered only after user selection, which is fundamentally different from the claimed independent rendering alongside transaction screens with specific overlay positioning technology. Lindsay does not appear to teach the claimed overlay positioning technology that prevents interference with transaction interface screens, nor does it teach the specific processing of donation screen options with keypad functionality as recited in the amended claims. Benkreira Deficiencies: Benkreira merely discloses general cryptocurrency wallet management and currency conversion but appears to fail to teach the specific technical architecture of independent donation screens with overlay positioning technology, keypad processing functionality, or integration via a single API call between specific software components.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on current amended claims. Furthermore, where a rejection rests on the combined disclosures in the references, an applicant/ appellant cannot establish non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Lindsay (Jain) and Benkreira discloses the limitation of claim 11. See the rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: Lack of Motivation to Combine The references represent fundamentally different approaches that would not motivate combination:1. Lindsay's Integrated Approach: Lindsay focuses on integrated donation workflows within transaction screens, which teaches away from the claimed independent and separate donation workflows with specific overlay positioning technology. Benkreira's General Cryptocurrency Management: Benkreira relates to cryptocurrency wallet management without any specific donation screen architectures, overlay positioning technology, or terminal integration methods. A person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine these disparate teachings to arrive at the amended claims' specific technical architecture of independent donation screens with overlay positioning technology, keypad processing functionality, and single API integration.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on current amended claims. Furthermore, the Lindsay reference teaches performing donation, however, the Lindsay reference explicitly does not teach purchasing a second amount of cryptocurrencies using the fiat currency. However, the Benkreira reference discloses purchasing cryptocurrency. The combination of Lindsay and Benkreira discloses the limitation of claim 11. See the rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Improper Combination Argument The proposed combination appears to rely on improper hindsight by using the amended claims as a blueprint to piece together unrelated elements from the references. The Examiner has not established a proper motivation for combining Lindsay's integrated donation approach with Benkreira's general cryptocurrency management to achieve the claimed independent donation screen architecture with specific overlay positioning technology and keypad processing functionality. The amended claims provide unique technical benefits not contemplated by either reference: enabling independent donation workflows with specific overlay positioning technology that prevents interference with transaction screens, while maintaining seamless transaction integration through minimal API coupling between specific software components with keypad processing functionality. This represents a non-obvious advance over the referenced combination approaches that focus on either integrated donation systems or general cryptocurrency management, but not the specific combination of independent donation workflows with overlay positioning technology and seamless transaction integration claimed herein. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be withdrawn and that the claims be allowed.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on current amended claims. Furthermore, the Lindsay reference teaches performing donation, however, the Lindsay reference explicitly does not teach purchasing a second amount of cryptocurrencies using the fiat currency. However, the Benkreira reference discloses purchasing cryptocurrency. The combination of Lindsay and Benkreira discloses the limitation of claim 11. See the rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Claims 12-13 and 16-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lindsay (W02023012530) in view of Benkreira (U.S. 2022/0067675) in view of Sobhani (U.S.
2015/0006426). Based on the amendments and remarks presented above with the corresponding independent claims to these rejected dependent claims, Applicant believes that these rejected dependent claims are now in condition for allowance and respectfully requests an indication of the same from the Examiner.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The combination of Lindsay (Jain) in view of Benkreira discloses the combination of claim 11. Furthermore, claims 12-13 and 16-18 are still rejected as the independent claim 11 is still rejected. Additionally, the combination of Lindsay (Jain), Benkreira, and Sobhani discloses the claim limitations of claim 12-13 and 16-18. See the rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 01/27/2026
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698