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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. No claims are cancelled or added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026, with regards to Section 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a specific, concrete approach in additional elements that (a) improves the technical field of online donation/payment processing, and (b) uses the combination of steps in a meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment. However, the amended claims related to the ownership of the devices in the system, and the ownership of a particular device does not address a technical problem or provide a technical solution. The use of donor owned user devices to verify a charities status including accessing websites owned by various government entities that run websites is a well understood part of the human organized activity of “Donation Verification and Process Management”. See for example “How to Verify the 501(c)(3) Status of a Nonprofit” by Rob Wu. These elements, recited at a high level of generality also fail to amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Section 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to Section 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated to address the amended claim language. It is noted that Hosny et al. is relied on to teach the amended claim language, and the Fig. 1 of Hosny et al. teaches independently operating devices performing the claimed method. The system of Hosny et al. also interacts with other outside vetting services including the BBB and other organizations through APIs as cited in the rejection below. Further, the ownership of the devices in the claimed system performing the claimed method amount to an intended use that defines the relationship between parties. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the claims have been amended to recite “if the charity vetting server is unable to authenticate the tax exempt status for the donee, reducing donation fraud by performing at least one of: denying the donee from registering on the system; blocking the donee from registering on the system at a later time; or temporarily suspending the donee from registering on the system;”, which is passively stated in the alternative. That is, this claim limitation is performed depending on a condition that does not need to occur and, as such, is optional. Nevertheless, for the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is addressed as if it is positively required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites “…before receiving a donation authorization comprising (a) a donor token for a donor that is uniquely associated with a donor account for the donor and (b) a donee first token for a donee that is uniquely associated with a donee account for the donee, receiving, in real-time…, donee registration information from the done…, wherein the donee registration information is used to register the donee …, wherein: the donee registration information comprises at least a portion of donee information including a tax exempt status for the done, wherein the charity vetting server is operated by a party that is independent from parties operating the one or more processors, the donor device, and the donee device; receiving, in real-time …, the donation authorization from the donor …, …: receiving a donee first token input associated with the donee first token …; after receiving the donation authorization, providing, in real-time …, a notice comprising (a) the tax exempt status for the donee, and (b) a request for a confirmation from the donor to pay a donation amount to be displayed …; after receiving the donee registration information or the donation authorization, facilitating, in real-time …, … to authenticate the tax exempt status for the done, wherein the charity vetting …. is operated by a party that is independent from parties operating .., the donor .., and the donee …; and if … unable to authenticate the tax exempt status for the donee, reducing donation fraud by performing at least one of: denying the donee from registering on the system; blocking the donee from registering on the system at a later time; or temporarily suspending the donee from registering on the system; and after receiving the donation authorization, facilitating, …, a sender financial institution to settle the donation amount with a receiver financial institution, wherein: a settlement time of when the sender financial institution settles the donation amount with the receiver financial institution, …, is independent from a posting time of when the receiver financial institution posts the donation amount to the donee account for the done; the sender financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting …, …, and the donor .., and the donee …; and the receiver financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting …, …, and the donor …, and the donee ….”. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “Donation Verification and Process Management”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; or business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). “Donation Verification and Process Management” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity because the process of managing donations and verifying tax exempt status is a process ordinarily performed by humans using ordinary processes such as checking paper copies of IRS form990 or IRS’ Tax-Exempt Organization Search (TEOS). That is, the process of obtaining donations for donees is an organized human activity where verification services are provided by third parties or professional fundraisers. For example, the federal government’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) has a variety of hosted websites with validated charities that allow a donor to find and provide funds to a donee. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s) including: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors; receiving data through the computer network; collecting information via a donee user interface executed on a donee device of the done; receiving data via a donor user interface executed on a donor device; the donor user interface is configured to be executed on the donor device; wherein the charity vetting server is operated by a party that is independent from parties operating the one or more processors, the donor device, and the donee device; receiving a donee first token input associated with the donee first token from an imaging device of the donor device, wherein the donee first token input comprises a barcode or a quick response (QR) code to further authenticate the donation authorization from the donor; a charity vetting server to authenticate, displaying data on the donor user interface executed on the donor device, and the sender financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting server, the one or more processors, and the donor device, and the donee device; and the receiver financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting server, the one or more processors, and the donor device, and the donee device. That is, the claims recite additional elements amounting to using smart phones to communicate with website hosted on a server, and defining the ownership of the various devices and services. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. That is, the recitations of additional elements amount merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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(f)). That is, the use of a smart phone to look up information on a server does not address a technological problem or present any technological solution. Rather it amounts to providing a technological environment in which the abstract idea is practiced. The PTAB has found similar claims, including the use of QR codes and tokens, to be certain method of organizing human activity and fundamental economic practice. See, for example, Appeal 2021-005241, Application 15/709,986. As the claim does not recite any technological solution, it is understood that the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The independence of parties also does not technological problem or present any technological solution. Rather, it is a definition of ownership relationships of multiple parties, including legal or contracting status. Accordingly, these 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, individually and in combination, are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. That is, the additional elements provide a server environment for implementing an abstract idea, but does not address a technological problem or present any technological solution. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 11 recite substantially similar features to those recited in representative claim 1 and are ineligible based on substantially the same reasons.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of the donation authorization further comprises the donee information; and the donee first token is associated with a first indication or a second indication, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of after receiving the donee first token input, when the donee first token is associated with the second indication, prompting the donor to provide a donee second token input associated with a donee second token for the donee; and receiving a donation amount input associated with the donation amount; and the donation authorization further comprises the donee first token input, the donee second token input, and the donation amount input, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of the donation authorization further comprises the donee information; and the donee information comprises donation campaign information for the donee and is configured to identify at least one of: a fundraiser; or a fundraising campaign, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of when the donee first token is associated with the first indication, the donee information is uniquely associated with the donee first token, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of after providing the notice associated with the tax exempt status, receiving, …., the confirmation from the donor to pay the donation amount, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of after receiving the donation authorization, facilitating, …, the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of after facilitating the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account, providing, …, a donation confirmation to be displayed …, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of after facilitating the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account, providing, …, a receipt of the donation amount to be displayed …., which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of “Donation Verification and Process Management” by introducing the element of the donation authorization further comprises the donee information; and the receipt comprises information associated with at least one of: the tax exempt status determined based on the donee information; a donee-specific history of donations made by the donor to the donee; a fundraiser-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraiser of the donee; or a campaign-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraising campaign of the donee, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10 also do not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claim 6 recites receiving data in real-time and through the computer network via the donor user interface; claim 8 recites displaying on at least one of: the donee user interface executed on the donee device; or a fundraiser user interface executed on a fundraiser device; and claim 9 recites through the computer network and the donation amount to be displayed on the donor user interface executed on the donor device. These additional elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. That is, the claims provide no practical limits or improvements to any technology. Claims 12-20 recite substantially similar features to those recited in claim 2-10 and are ineligible based on substantially the same reasons. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0343043 to Hicks et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150154666 to Hosny et al.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Hicks et al. teaches
a computer network comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors (paragraph [0074], “In one embodiment, the user may conduct these transactions online via a software application running on the user's computer or on a server via the Internet, where the user is able to access the rewards currency and then transfer the funds to the platform 240.”), cause the one or more processors to perform:
before receiving a donation authorization comprising (a) a donor token for a donor that is uniquely associated with a donor account for the donor and (b) a donee first token for a donee that is uniquely associated with a donee account for the donee, receiving, in real-time and through the computer network, donee registration information from the donee via a donee user interface executed on a donee device of the donee (paragraph [0026], “The user 102, also referred to herein as a donor, may be one or more users interacting or interfacing with the system 100 as described below.”; paragraph [0030], “The donor account database 112 is one or more data storage devices storing donor account information. As described in further detail below, the donor account information provides for user account information, as well as preferences, charitable donation history, connections and relationships with other users and charities, contact preferences, financial information, and other data.”; paragraph [0032], “In one embodiment, the user 102 may populate the donor account 112, including entering user information such as name, age, preferences, personal goals, charitable goals, charitable giving history, preferred charities or causes and financial information. The user 102 may also effectuate the transfer of donation funds to the donor account.”), wherein
the donee registration information is used to register the donee on the system (paragraph [0047], “In one embodiment, this may include the user employing the system for generating a new giving account with the giving platform, such as entering a username, password, personal information and possibly a donation account source information. Wherein the user has an existing account, the user may simply log in to the existing account. The user may also enter preference information relating to the user's preferences for charitable giving, such as preferred charity organizations. With the registered account, the consumer becomes a user and a potential donor.”), wherein:
the donee registration information comprises at least a portion of donee information including a tax exempt status for the donee (paragraph [0063], “Through the giving platform 110, the user may select one or more charities and selects said charity. The next step, step 224, is the system validates the status of the charity organization. This validation may include verification of charitable 501(c)(3) status, and may include additional steps for verification, including checking any additional charitable registrations or other forms to verify the charitable entity.”);
receiving, in real-time and through the computer network, the donation authorization from the donor via a donor user interface executed on a donor device (paragraph [0041], “A next step, step 162, is receiving a donation request from the user to generate a donation to a user selected charity from a variety of charities, the donation providing a donation value of at least a portion of the plurality of donation funds within the giving account. As noted above, the donor user can donate actual monetary funds, e.g. US dollars, or may donate other forms of donation currency.”; paragraph [0102], “Functions may include a charity check, update of cache daily, or a check of charity status in real-time during donation.”), wherein the donor user interface is configured to be executed on the donor device to perform (paragraph [0031], “The charity 114 a may include computer processing facilities for active engagement and data exchange. In another example, the charity 114 b may represent a static data file providing information to the giving platform about the charity, such as its purpose and intended beneficiaries.”):
receiving a donee first token input associated with the donee first token from an imaging device of the donor device, wherein the donee first token input comprises a barcode or a quick response (QR) code to further authenticate the donation authorization from the donor (paragraph [0045], “FIG. 4 illustrates a graphical representation of the donation lifecycle, as enabled by the method and system for managing charitable donations. In this system, there are numerous distribution partners 180. … These distribution partners connect and/or coordinate with the giving platform for presentation of charitable purposes, e.g. marketing, as well as to be connected with donors.”; paragraph [0046], “In this lifecycle, a second element or aspect may be the distribution partners offering a giving platform to their consumers to become users, 182. … Processing modules may also include other offline elements by which users may subsequently access the system via a graphical user interface, such as promotion codes, data on gift cards or receipts, quick response codes, bar codes, or other offline tools, etc.”);
after receiving the donation authorization, providing, in real-time and through the computer network, a notice comprising (a) the tax exempt status for the donee, and (b) a request for a confirmation from the donor to pay a donation amount to be displayed on the donor user interface executed on the donor device (paragraph [0063], “Through the giving platform 110, the user may select one or more charities and selects said charity. The next step, step 224, is the system validates the status of the charity organization. This validation may include verification of charitable 501(c)(3) status, and may include additional steps for verification, including checking any additional charitable registrations or other forms to verify the charitable entity.”);
after receiving the donee registration information or the donation authorization, facilitating, in real-time and through the computer network, a charity vetting server to authenticate the tax exempt status for the donee (paragraph [0063], “Through the giving platform 110, the user may select one or more charities and selects said charity. The next step, step 224, is the system validates the status of the charity organization. This validation may include verification of charitable 501(c)(3) status, and may include additional steps for verification, including checking any additional charitable registrations or other forms to verify the charitable entity.”), …; and
….and
after receiving the donation authorization, facilitating, through the computer network, a sender financial institution to settle the donation amount with a receiver financial institution (paragraph [0015], “The donation of funds to the user's giving account may be provided from any number of sources, including for example via a bank transfer from the user's banking account directly transferring funds to the giving account. In another example, the user may electronically transfer rewards or points from various commercial vendors, such as credit card vendors, airline miles, loyalty program currency, etc. In another embodiment, the user may be provided the ability to generate donations via an employer payroll or employee benefit system, such as having funds automatically withdrawn from the user's paycheck and then seamlessly transferred to the user's giving account via the employer's payroll system.”; paragraph [0074], “In this case, the loyalty provider can provide an electronic transfer of funds through a clearinghouse or other financial transaction to effectively transfer the rewards to the platform 240, with the platform 240 then allocating funds to the user's giving account within the computerized gift processing system. In one embodiment, the user may conduct these transactions online via a software application running on the user's computer or on a server via the Internet, where the user is able to access the rewards currency and then transfer the funds to the platform 240.”),
wherein: a settlement time of when the sender financial institution settles the donation amount with the receiver financial institution, through the computer network, is independent from a posting time of when the receiver financial institution posts the donation amount to the donee account for the donee (paragraph [0066], “A next step, step 230, is the foundation verifies charitable status and cuts a check to the recipient organizations. In this embodiment, the cutting of the check may be the actual printing and mailing of a physical check, or can include an electronic wire-transfer if the charity is able to receive such donation amounts.”), but Hick et al. fails to explicitly teach being unable to authenticate the tax exempt status.
However Hosny et al. teaches if the charity vetting server is unable to authenticate the tax exempt status for the donee, reducing donation fraud by performing at least one of: denying the donee from registering on the system; blocking the donee from registering on the system at a later time; or temporarily suspending the donee from registering on the system (paragraph [0015], “Potential charitable donation recipients (for example, the International Red Crescent), may register with the Broker Computer system 108 by providing required information and then submitting to a screening process. In some implementations, potential recipients are subjected to a robust vetting process that includes confirming the contact information and bank details of the potential recipient organization, ensuring that the recipient is an accredited and/or approved charity, and ensuring that the recipient does not appear on a blacklist or other suspect list provided by any legal entities, such as law enforcement agencies or international anti-terrorist intelligence organizations.”; paragraph [0019], “If the potential recipient does not pass the initial screening process 208 (for any reason), then the potential recipients' registration request is rejected 210, and the process ends. This may occur when, for example, it is found (during a background check) that the potential recipient provided fraudulent or misleading information, or if a determination is made that the potential recipient does not meet stated financial requirements. In some cases, a government and/or law enforcement entity may determine that a potential recipient is affiliated or associated with a terrorist organization resulting in rejection.”),
wherein the charity vetting server is operated by a party that is independent from parties operating the one or more processors, the donor device, and the donee device (See Fig 1, with independent computing devices 102, 106, 108, and 110, paragraph [0017], “In some embodiments, in order to be a registered or accredited charity, a potential recipient of charitable donations may also be required to meet standards that are required by third party screening organizations and/or government organizations. For example, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which operates in the United States of America, follows certain guidelines or requirements to accredit charitable organizations.”); and
the sender financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting server, the one or more processors, and the donor device, and the donee device; and the receiver financial institution is operated by a party independent from parties operating the charity vetting server, the one or more processors, and the donor device, and the donee device (paragraph [0047], “The programs may include a recipient bank registration application program interface (API) 612 that manages the processing of recipient bank applications, and a recipient accreditation API 614 that manages the screening and/or vetting process of potential recipients (such as charitable organizations). The recipient accreditation API 614 may handle initial screening of a potential recipient by utilizing predetermined rules and regulations and then, in some implementations, contact government and/or law enforcement entities in various countries (which may depend upon the location and/or residence of the recipient bank and/or the potential recipient) for final screening. Once a potential recipient has passed the vetting process, then the recipient accreditation API may operate to store that recipient's information in the approved recipient database, and place that recipient on a list of approved recipients for purposes of receiving charitable donations.”).
This part of Hosny et al. is applicable to the system of Hicks et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to donation management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hicks et al. to include the charity rejection processes as taught by Hosny et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hicks et al. in order to prevent fraudulent giving or support to terrorist organizations (see paragraph [0019] of Hosny et al.).
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Hicks et al. teaches the donation authorization further comprises the donee information; and the donee first token is associated with a first indication or a second indication (paragraph [0031], “The charity 114 illustrated herein represents the charitable organization, but as described in further detail below, the processing system may include further degrees of informational exchange and data interfacing. For example, the charity 114 a may represent a computer processing interface for the charity itself, for communicating with the giving platform 110. The charity 114 a may include computer processing facilities for active engagement and data exchange. In another example, the charity 114 b may represent a static data file providing information to the giving platform about the charity, such as its purpose and intended beneficiaries.”).
With regards to claims 5 and 15, Hicks et al. teaches when the donee first token is associated with the first indication, the donee information is uniquely associated with the donee first token (paragraph [0041], “In this case, the donor user may make a donation selection via the graphical user interface provided by the system of the giving platform 110, including the selection of one or more charities 114 and a designation of the amount to be donated. Donation funds may for a user may come from a variety of sources, including third-parties, in which case there may be a donation of a first and second plurality of donation funds.”).
With regards to claims 3 and 13, Hicks et al. teaches the donor user interface is further configured to perform:
after receiving the donee first token input, when the donee first token is associated with the second indication, prompting the donor to provide a donee second token input associated with a donee second token for the donee (paragraph [0041], “A next step, step 162, is receiving a donation request from the user to generate a donation to a user selected charity from a variety of charities, the donation providing a donation value of at least a portion of the plurality of donation funds within the giving account.”); and
receiving a donation amount input associated with the donation amount (paragraph [0041], “In this case, the donor user may make a donation selection via the graphical user interface provided by the system of the giving platform 110, including the selection of one or more charities 114 and a designation of the amount to be donated.”); and
the donation authorization further comprises the donee first token input, the donee second token input, and the donation amount input (paragraph [0041], “In this case, the donor user may make a donation selection via the graphical user interface provided by the system of the giving platform 110, including the selection of one or more charities 114 and a designation of the amount to be donated. Donation funds may for a user may come from a variety of sources, including third-parties, in which case there may be a donation of a first and second plurality of donation funds.”; paragraph [0063], “This validation may include verification of charitable 501(c)(3) status, and may include additional steps for verification, including checking any additional charitable registrations or other forms to verify the charitable entity.”).
With regards to claims 4 and 14, Hicks et al. teaches the donation authorization further comprises the donee information (paragraph [0041], “A next step, step 162, is receiving a donation request from the user to generate a donation to a user selected charity from a variety of charities, the donation providing a donation value of at least a portion of the plurality of donation funds within the giving account.”); and
the donee information comprises donation campaign information for the donee and is configured to identify at least one of: a fundraiser; or a fundraising campaign (paragraph [0082], “Financial goal of a campaign does not trigger a donation or close of campaign. The system also allows for personal fundraising, including creating a campaign for an individual. The user may select a cause.”).
With regards to claims 6 and 16, Hicks et al. teaches after providing the notice associated with the tax exempt status, receiving, in real-time and through the computer network via the donor user interface, the confirmation from the donor to pay the donation amount (paragraph [0063], “The next step, step 224, is the system validates the status of the charity organization. This validation may include verification of charitable 501(c)(3) status, and may include additional steps for verification, including checking any additional charitable registrations or other forms to verify the charitable entity.”; paragraph [0068], “Regardless of the type of account, the outgoing fund allocation therein provides, step 240, that the member account shows processing of donation and consolidation of tax reporting. As described in further detail below, the user is presented with tax reporting for annual charitable donations, usable not only for internal record keeping, but also for reporting tax deductions for charitable giving.”).
With regards to claims 7 and 17, Hicks et al. teaches after receiving the donation authorization, facilitating, in real-time and through the computer network, the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account (paragraph [0068], “Regardless of the type of account, the outgoing fund allocation therein provides, step 240, that the member account shows processing of donation and consolidation of tax reporting. As described in further detail below, the user is presented with tax reporting for annual charitable donations, usable not only for internal record keeping, but also for reporting tax deductions for charitable giving.”).
With regards to claims 8 and 15, Hicks et al. teaches after facilitating the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account, providing, in real-time and through the computer network, a donation confirmation to be displayed on at least one of: the donee user interface executed on the donee device; or a fundraiser user interface executed on a fundraiser device (paragraph [0068], “Regardless of the type of account, the outgoing fund allocation therein provides, step 240, that the member account shows processing of donation and consolidation of tax reporting. As described in further detail below, the user is presented with tax reporting for annual charitable donations, usable not only for internal record keeping, but also for reporting tax deductions for charitable giving.”).).
With regards to claims 9 and 19, Hicks et al. teaches after facilitating the receiver financial institution to post in real-time the donation amount to the donee account, providing, in real-time and through the computer network, a receipt of the donation amount to be displayed on the donor user interface executed on the donor device (paragraph [0068], “Regardless of the type of account, the outgoing fund allocation therein provides, step 240, that the member account shows processing of donation and consolidation of tax reporting. As described in further detail below, the user is presented with tax reporting for annual charitable donations, usable not only for internal record keeping, but also for reporting tax deductions for charitable giving.”).
With regards to claims 10 and 20, Hicks et al. teaches the donation authorization further comprises the donee information (paragraph [0041], “In this case, the donor user may make a donation selection via the graphical user interface provided by the system of the giving platform 110, including the selection of one or more charities 114 and a designation of the amount to be donated. Donation funds may for a user may come from a variety of sources, including third-parties, in which case there may be a donation of a first and second plurality of donation funds.”); and
the receipt comprises information associated with at least one of: the tax exempt status determined based on the donee information; a donee-specific history of donations made by the donor to the donee; a fundraiser-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraiser of the donee; or a campaign-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraising campaign of the donee (paragraph [0068], “Regardless of the type of account, the outgoing fund allocation therein provides, step 240, that the member account shows processing of donation and consolidation of tax reporting. As described in further detail below, the user is presented with tax reporting for annual charitable donations, usable not only for internal record keeping, but also for reporting tax deductions for charitable giving.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“How to Verify the 501(c)(3) Status of a Nonprofit” by Rob Wu discusses methods of verifying the tax status of a nonprofit, including accessing information from multiple independent organizations.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210082005 to David et al. discusses a system to couple to an account of a donor, receive financial history from the account, analyze a financial health of the donor based, at least in part, on the financial history, identify a topic of interest of the donor based, at least in part, on the financial history, recommend at least one of a plurality of charities to the donor based at least in part on the topic of interest of the donor, and recommend a donation amount to one of the plurality of charities based at least in part on the financial health of the donor.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)270-3445. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights