DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on October 10, 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on July 10, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–14 are directed to a machine (“A computing system”), and claims 15–20 are directed to a process (“A computer-implemented method”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . store information regarding a plurality of accounts of the provider institution; . . .
receive . . . first third party information from a first third party . . . of the plurality of third party . . ., the first third party information including a first third party account and a selection of a first category type of the first third party . . .;
receive . . . second third party information from a second third party . . . of the plurality of third party . . ., the second third party information including a selection of a second category type of the second third party . . .;
receive . . . a selection to transfer a resource from an account of the plurality of accounts to the first third party account of the first third party . . .;
update, responsive to receiving the selection to transfer the resource, a total amount of resources associated with the first category type;
compare the total amount of resources associated with the first category type with historical transaction data of the account . . ., the historical transaction data including a total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types;
determine, based on the comparison, that a first ratio of the total amount of resources associated with the first category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types exceeds a second ratio of a total amount of resources associated with the second category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types. . .; and
. . . render a listing of resource transfers associated with the first category type . . ..
Claims 1–8, therefore, recite a resource transfer transaction, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The claims also recite comparing and determining a resource transfer amount, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
For claim 9, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . store information regarding the third party system; . . .
receive . . . third party information from the third party . . ., the third party information . . . of a third party account of the third party . . .;
store the third party information . . .;
receive . . . a selection to transfer a resource to the third party; and
cause a transfer of the resource from an account . . . to the third party account associated with the third party . . . responsive to receiving the first user input . . ..
Claims 9–18, therefore, recite a resource transfer transaction, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The claims also recite comparing and determining a resource transfer amount, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“computing system”, “network interface”, “user device”, “database”, “processing circuit”, “processor”, “memory”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “graphical representation”, “token”, “position sensor”, “application programming interface (API)”, and “resource transfer service token”). The claims also recite generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising graphical representations, providing the GUI to a user device, receiving input to the GUI, and updating the graphical representations on the GUI. These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to communicate and store information and make a determination. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 9. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“computing system”, “network interface”, “database”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “graphical representation”, and “user device”). The only difference is that the features of claim 9 are implemented by a method in claim 15. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 15 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the resource transfer transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying the account—“includes a first personalized token”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “processor”, “network interface”, “graphical representation”, and “GUI”). This claim does recite a token, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to represent the account. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 3, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites determining user location is within a predetermined distance, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because it involves observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind. This dependent claim also recites recommending transfer based on user location, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “processor”, “network interface”, and “user device”). This claim does recite a position sensor, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to determine user location. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4 and 5, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite generating and providing a transfer report and transaction history report, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “processor”, “network interface”, “GUI”, and “user device”). These claims do recite an application programming interface (API), but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to communicate information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the resource transfer transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying what is presented—“a summary of transactions”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “processor”, “network interface”, and “graphical representation”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 7, 12, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite parsing and matching party information, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind. These dependent claims also recite recommending transfer based on matching and comparing information, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “processor”, “database”, “network interface”, and “user device ”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 8, 14, and 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the resource transfer transaction recited in claims 1, 9, and 15 by further specifying the third party—“charity or a non-profit”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 10, 11, 16, and 17, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the resource transfer transaction recited in claims 9 and 15 by further specifying what is selected—“selectable category types” and “selectable feature associated with a dialogue box”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system”, “network interface”, “graphical representation”, and “GUI”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 13 and 19, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the resource transfer transaction recited in claims 9 and 15 by further specifying the third party information—“name of the third party”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing system” and “processor”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
(1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
(2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
(3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman, U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0049631 (“Goldman”) in view of Sharma et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0224869 (“Sharma”).
For claim 1, Goldman teaches:
A computing system of a provider institution, comprising (¶ 17: online donation system):
a network interface configured to communicate with a user device and a plurality of third party systems (¶ 21–22: computer device and donation system connected through network);
a database configured to store information regarding a plurality of accounts of the provider institution (¶ 18: database storing charity information); and
a processing circuit comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory structured to store instructions that are executable to cause the at least one processor to (¶ 21: processors and memories):
receive, via the network interface, first third party information from a first third party system of the plurality of third party systems, the first third party information including a first third party account and a selection of a first category type of the first third party system (¶ 18: charity information received including type of organization; ¶ 50: database also receives charity account information);
receive, via the network interface, second third party information from a second third party system of the plurality of third party systems (¶ 18: multiple individual charities provide records), the second third party information including a selection of a second category type of the second third party system (¶ 18: charity information received including type of organization);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ 22: graphical user interface), the GUI comprising a first graphical representation of the first category type and a second graphical representation of the second category type (Fig. 4, ¶ 29–30: charity information presented to user including type of charity and work);
provide, via the network interface, the GUI to the user device (¶ 31, 45: webpage is presented through the web interface);
receive, via the network interface, a first user input to the GUI indicating a selection to transfer a resource from an account of the plurality of accounts to the first third party account of the first third party system (¶ 34, 45: user selects charity and donation amount; ¶ 46–47: donation amount from suitable user account to charity account);
update, responsive to receiving the selection to transfer the resource, a total amount of resources associated with the first category type (¶ 37: amount donated added to total amount);
compare the total amount of resources associated with the first category type with historical transaction data of the account stored in the database (¶ 37: total amount needed for goal and amount donated compared) . . .;
automatically update, via the network interface, a position of the first graphical representation of the first category type to be above the second graphical representation of the second category type on the GUI responsive to determining that the first ratio exceeds the second ratio (¶ 37: webpage displays countdown meter depicting different organizations progress in denomination amount) . . ..
Goldman does not teach: the historical transaction data including a total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types; determine, based on the comparison, that a first ratio of the total amount of resources associated with the first category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types exceeds a second ratio of a total amount of resources associated with the second category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types; receive, via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI indicating a selection of the first graphical representation, wherein the selection is at the position of the first graphical representation; and responsive to receiving the selection of the first graphical representation, render a listing of resource transfers associated with the first category type on the GUI .
Sharma, however, teaches:
the historical transaction data including a total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types (¶ 116: transaction history of donation categories);
determine, based on the comparison, that a first ratio of the total amount of resources associated with the first category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types exceeds a second ratio of a total amount of resources associated with the second category type to the total amount of resources for each of the plurality of category types (¶ 116: donation category “A” and donation category “B” balances compared);
receive, via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI indicating a selection of the first graphical representation, wherein the selection is at the position of the first graphical representation (¶ 71–72: user selection on user interface display); and
responsive to receiving the selection of the first graphical representation, render a listing of resource transfers associated with the first category type on the GUI (¶ 72–73: interface displays transactions for category types upon user selection).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman by adding the donation categories from Sharma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving security of donation transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sharma (¶ 5: need for minimizing fraudulent transactions with charity organizations; ¶ 4: invention addresses problem through donation categories) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system).
For claim 2, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first third party information includes a first personalized token of the first third party account of the first third party system (¶ 18: charity information received includes tax identification number) and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to render, via the network interface, a graphical representation of the first third party system on the GUI, wherein the graphical representation does not include the first personalized token [“token” has been interpreted as any identifier associated with an account. See Specification ¶ 27, 38] (Fig. 4, ¶ 29–30: charity information presented to user, and tax identification number not disclosed).
For claim 3, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the second third party information includes an address of the second third party system (¶ 25: organization information includes address) and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive, via the network interface and via a position sensor of the user device, a location of the user device (¶ 44: locality of user determined from internet and user interface);
determine, based on the address of the second third party system, that the location is within a predetermined distance of the address (¶ 44: local charities highlighted for user); and
transmit, via the network interface, a notification to the user device including a recommendation to transfer additional resources to the second third party system (¶ 41: charity recommended based on geography).
For claim 7, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: parse account information of the account stored in the database (¶ 51: separate charity accounts determined);
determine, based on the account information, that at least one data element of the account information matches at least one data element of the second third party information of the second third party system (¶ 50: account details looked up and matched to charity); and
transmit, via the network interface, a notification to the user device including a recommendation to transfer funds to the second third party system (¶ 50–51: user sends funds to account based on matching charity).
For claim 8, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first third party system comprises at least one of a charity or a non-profit organization (¶ 18: charity).
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman, U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0049631 (“Goldman”) in view of Sharma et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0224869 (“Sharma”) and Dreicer et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0027072 (“Dreicer”).
For claim 4, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive, via the network interface, a third user input to the GUI, the third user input indicating a selection to share information of the transfer of resources with an entity system (¶ 45: user indicates donating on behalf of third party);
generate a report including the information of the transfer of funds (¶ 45: system generates form acknowledgement based on donation); and
transmit . . . the report to the entity system (¶ 45: form provided to other party).
Goldman does not teach: via a third party application programming interface (API).
Dreicer, however, teaches:
via a third party application programming interface (API) (¶ 43: applications programming interface (API) for providing data to third party systems).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman and the donation categories from Sharma by adding the API from Dreicer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving transparency with charitable donations—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Dreicer (¶ 3: problem in charitable sector of no intelligence or transparency; ¶ 4: invention addresses problem through charitable website configured to provide data to user) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system). Goldman, Sharma, and Dreicer are all related in part to online donations, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references together to make these donations more effective.
For claim 5, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Goldman and Sharma does not teach: wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive, via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI, the second user input indicating a selection of a predetermined time period; generate a report including transaction history of the predetermined time period of the account of the plurality of accounts; and provide, via the network interface, the report to the user device.
Dreicer, however, teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive, via the network interface, a third user input to the GUI, the third user input indicating a selection of a predetermined time period (¶ 67: user select display control for predetermined time period);
generate a report including transaction history of the predetermined time period of the account of the plurality of accounts (¶ 67: user select display control for predetermined time period); and
provide, via the network interface, the report to the user device (¶ 67: user select display control for predetermined time period).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman and the donation categories from Sharma by adding the contribution history from Dreicer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving transparency with charitable donations—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Dreicer (¶ 3: problem in charitable sector of no intelligence or transparency; ¶ 4: invention addresses problem through charitable website configured to provide data to user) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system). Goldman, Sharma, and Dreicer are all related in part to online donations, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references together to make these donations more effective.
For claim 6, Goldman and Sharma teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Goldman and Sharma does not teach: render, via the network interface, a graphical representation of a summary of transactions of the account of the plurality of accounts over a predetermined period of time; and wherein the graphical representation of the summary of transactions of the account includes a first section indicating the total amount associated with the first category type and a second section indicating the total amount associated with the second category type.
Dreicer, however, teaches:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: render, via the network interface, a graphical representation of a summary of transactions of the account of the plurality of accounts over a predetermined period of time (¶ 67: contributions to charities over predetermined time collected); and
wherein the graphical representation of the summary of transactions of the account includes a first section indicating the total amount associated with the first category type and a second section indicating the total amount associated with the second category type (¶ 67: display generated including contributions to specific groupings of charities).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman and the donation categories from Sharma by adding the contribution history from Dreicer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving transparency with charitable donations—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Dreicer (¶ 3: problem in charitable sector of no intelligence or transparency; ¶ 4: invention addresses problem through charitable website configured to provide data to user) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system). Goldman, Sharma, and Dreicer are all related in part to online donations, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references together to make these donations more effective.
Claims 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman, U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0049631 (“Goldman”) in view of Sylvester, U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0156803 (“Sylvester”).
For claim 9, Goldman teaches:
A computing system of a provider institution, comprising (¶ 17: online donation system):
a network interface configured to communicate with a user device and a third party system (¶ 21–22: computer device and donation system connected through network);
a database configured to store information regarding the third party system (¶ 18: database storing charity information); and
a processing circuit comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory structured to store instructions that are executable to cause the at least one processor to (¶ 21: processors and memories):
receive, via the network interface, third party information from the third party system, the third party information including a . . . token of a third party account of the third party system (¶ 18: charity information received including tax identification number);
store the third party information in the database (¶ 18: information stored in database);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ 22: graphical user interface), the GUI comprising a selectable graphical representation of a third party associated with the third party system, wherein the selectable graphical representation does not include the . . . token associated with the third party account (Fig. 4, ¶ 29–30: charity information presented to user, and tax identification number not disclosed);
provide, via the network interface, the GUI to the user device (¶ 31, 45: webpage is presented through the web interface);
receive, via the network interface, a first user input to the GUI indicating a selection to transfer a resource to the third party (¶ 34, 45: user selects charity and donation amount);
cause a transfer of the resource from an account associated with the user device to the third party account associated with the third party system responsive to receiving the first user input based on the . . . token (¶ 46–47: donation amount from suitable user account to charity account).
Goldman does not teach: resource transfer service token.
Sylvester, however, teaches:
resource transfer service token (¶ 21: donor token may be public or private token, including identifying number).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman by adding the token from Sylvester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating authentication in online donations—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sylvester (¶ 2: automatic authentication desired for online donation systems processing; ¶ 18: invention addresses problem in part through tokens) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system).
For claim 10, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the third party information includes a category type of the third party system and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: render, via the network interface, a graphical representation of a plurality of selectable category types on the GUI, the plurality of selectable category types including the category type of the third party system (¶ 29–30, 41: charity information presented to user including type of charity and work);
receive, via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI indicating a selection of the category type of the third party system (¶ 30, 41: user selection based on charity type); and
render, via the network interface, the selectable graphical representation of the third party associated with the third party system responsive to receiving the second user input to the GUI (¶ 30–34: charity information based on user selection from catalogue).
For claim 11, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the third party information includes a category type of the third party system and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: render, via the network interface, a selectable feature associated with a dialogue box on the GUI (¶ 18: searchable query engine through interface);
receive, via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI an input to the selectable feature associated with the dialogue box (¶ 22, 33: user searches database); and
parse the database based on the second user input (¶ 18, 33: database queried using user search criteria);
determine that the input to the selectable feature matches at least one data element associated with the third party information of the third party system (¶ 18, 33: charity matched with user search criteria); and
render, via the network interface, the selectable graphical representation of the third party associated with the third party system responsive to receiving the second user input to the GUI (¶ 18, 22, 33: user presented with search results based on query).
For claim 12, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the third party information comprises first third party information and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive, via the network interface, second third party information of a second third party system communicably coupled to the computing system (¶ 18: multiple individual charities provide records);
compare the second third party information with the first third party information (¶ 41: charities compared based on information);
determine, based on the comparison, that at least one data element of the second third party information matches a data element of the first third party information (¶ 41: similar charities determined based on various factors); and
transmit, via the network interface, a notification to the user device responsive to determining that the at least one data element of the second third party information matches the data element of the first third party information, the notification including a recommendation to transfer resources to the second third party system (¶ 41: similar charities grouped and listed to encourage donation).
For claim 13, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the third party information includes a name of the third party (¶ 25: organization name) and the instructions further cause the at least one processor to transmit the name of the third party to a transfer service computing system communicably coupled to the computing system to cause the transfer of the resource from the account associated with the user device to the third party account associated with the third party system (¶ 50: e-commerce engine transfers donation based on user selecting charity).
For claim 14, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein the third party system comprises at least one of a charity or a non-profit organization (¶ 18: charity).
For claim 15, Goldman teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising (¶ 34: online donation system method):
receiving, by a computing system, third party information from a third party system communicably coupled to the computing system via a network interface (¶ 21–22: computer device and donation system connected through network), the third party information including a . . . token of a third party account of the third party system (¶ 18: charity information received including tax identification number; ¶ 50: database also receives charity account information);
storing, by the computing system, the third party information in a database of the computing system (¶ 18: database storing charity information):
generating, by the computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶ 22: graphical user interface), the GUI comprising a selectable graphical representation of a third party associated with the third party system, wherein the selectable graphical representation does not include the . . . token associated with the third party (Fig. 4, ¶ 29–30: charity information presented to user, and tax identification number not disclosed);
providing, by the computing system and via the network interface, the GUI to a user device communicably coupled to the computing system (¶ 31, 45: webpage is presented through the web interface; ¶ 21–22: computer device and donation system connected through network);
receiving, by the computing system and via the network interface, a first user input to the GUI indicating a selection to transfer a resource to the third party (¶ 34, 45: user selects charity and donation amount);
causing, by the computing system, a transfer of the resource from an account associated with the user device to the third party account associated with the third party system based on the . . . token (¶ 46–47: donation amount from suitable user account to charity account).
Goldman does not teach: resource transfer service token.
Sylvester, however, teaches:
resource transfer service token (¶ 21: donor token may be public or private token, including identifying number).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the donation transfer in Goldman by adding the token from Sylvester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating authentication in online donations—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sylvester (¶ 2: automatic authentication desired for online donation systems processing; ¶ 18: invention addresses problem in part through tokens) and desired by Goldman (¶ 3: need for improved online charity donation system).
For claim 16, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the third party information includes a category type of the third party system and the method further comprises: rendering, by the computing system and via the network interface, a graphical representation of a plurality of selectable category types on the GUI, the plurality of selectable category types including the category type of the third party system (¶ 29–30, 41: charity information presented to user including type of charity and work);
receiving, by the computing system and via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI, the second user input indicating a selection of the category type of the third party system (¶ 30–34: user selection based on charity type); and
rendering, by the computing system and via the network interface, the selectable graphical representation of the third party associated with the third party system responsive to receiving the second user input to the GUI (¶ 30–34: charity information based on user selection from catalogue).
For claim 17, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the third party information includes a category type of the third party system and the method further comprises: rendering, by the computing system and via the network interface, a selectable feature associated with a dialogue box on the GUI (¶ 18: searchable query engine through interface);
receiving, by the computing system and via the network interface, a second user input to the GUI, the second user input indicating an input to the selectable feature associated with the dialogue box (¶ 22, 33: user searches database);
parsing, by the computing system, the database based on the second user input (¶ 18, 33: database queried using user search criteria);
determining, by the computing system, that the input to the selectable feature matches at least one data element associated with the third party information of the third party system (¶ 18, 33: charity matched with user search criteria); and
rendering, by the computing system and via the network interface, the selectable graphical representation of the third party associated with the third party system responsive to receiving the second user input to the GUI (¶ 18, 22, 33: user presented with search results based on query).
For claim 18, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the third party information comprises first third party information and the method further comprises: receiving, by the computing system and via the network interface, second third party information of a second third party system communicably coupled to the computing system (¶ 18: multiple individual charities provide records);
comparing, by the computing system, the second third party information with the first third party information (¶ 41: charities compared based on information);
determining, by the computing system, based on the comparison, that at least one data element of the second third party information matches a data element of the first third party information (¶ 41: similar charities determined based on various factors); and
transmitting, by the computing system and via the network interface, a notification to the user device responsive to determining that the at least one data element of the second third party information matches the data element of the first third party information, the notification including a recommendation to transfer resources to the second third party system (¶ 41: similar charities grouped and listed to encourage donation).
For claim 19, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the third party information includes a name of the third party (¶ 25: organization name) and the method further comprises transmitting the name of the third party to a transfer service computing system communicably coupled to the computing system via the network interface to cause the transfer of the resource from the account associated with the user device to the third party account associated with the third party system (¶ 50: e-commerce engine transfers donation based on user selecting charity).
For claim 20, Goldman and Sylvester teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Goldman further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the third party system comprises at least one of a charity or a non-profit organization (¶ 18: charity).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible because it is integrated into a practical application. Applicant explains that claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement to user interfaces for electronic devices because it recites a specific manner of automatically displaying and dynamically updating graphical representations. Claim 1, however, is merely using the graphical user interface as a tool to initiate the transfer and display information. The claims do not indicate how the graphical user interface technology itself is improved in any way, and instead merely apply the resource transfer to this generic technology. Thus claims 1–8 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Next, Applicant argues that claims 9 and 15 are not directed to any human activity, and even if they are, they are directed to a practical application of any alleged judicial exception. Applicant explains that the claimed invention recites the technical improvement of reducing fraud risk in electronic transactions by initiating a transfer based on a token while concealing the token from displaying on the GUI. This improvement indicated by Applicant, however, is merely an improvement to the abstract idea of a resource transfer. The transfer is made more secure by determining not to share certain information, such as a token. The claims are therefore merely applying the abstract idea to the GUI and token technologies, using them as generic tools, rather than improving the technologies themselves in any way. Finally, Applicant argues that claims 9 and 15 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant explains that the claims recite the unconventional features of electronically transferring funds while concealing the token, which reduces the processing power of the GUI. As discussed above, however, these features merely improve the abstract idea by applying it the generic technology recited. And, merely applying an abstract idea to a computer, as established in Step 2A Prong Two, cannot provide an inventive concept, as required under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, claims 9–20 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 9, and 15 and argues that Goldman (U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0049631) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claim 1, however, is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goldman in view of Sharma (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0224869); and claims 9 and 15 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goldman in view of Sylvester (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0156803). Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15 are moot.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 15, which were amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. As discussed above, however, claim 1 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goldman in view of Sharma; and claims 9 and 15 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goldman in view of Sylvester. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Marble, U.S. Patent App. No. 2009/0192873, discloses an electronic market platform for coordinating donations.
Lee, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0164275, discloses charitable donations through mobile devices.
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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights