DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on December 29, 2025.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to methods, thus they fall within statutory categories.
At step 2A prong I, independent claim 1 (exemplary) recites an abstract idea. The following limitations, other than the underlined portions, recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: “a) obtaining in at least one server computer first affinity information selected by a first donor user and storing the first affinity information in a first data object associated with the first donor user; b) obtaining in the at least one server computer second affinity information relating to each of a plurality of organizations, wherein the second affinity information for each organization corresponds to an attribute of the organization; c) responsive to establishment of a server/client session between the at least one server computer and a first client computing device subsequent to step a), determining in a computer processor of the at least one server computer a subset of the plurality of organizations based on a correlation of the first affinity information and the second affinity information using at least the first data object; and d) providing graphic card information relating to the subset of organizations to the first client computing device, wherein the graphic card information is configured to be displayed on a user interface of the first client computing device such that a graphic card is displayed on the first client computing device corresponding to each of the subset of the plurality of organizations; and wherein each graphic card includes text identifying and an image corresponding to one of the subset of the plurality of organizations.” These steps, which create graphics cards for a combined set of content, i.e. allowing a donor to search through multiple charity organizations in a simplified manner, fall into the concepts of commercial or legal interactions as well as managing personal behavior or social interactions.
At step 2A prong II, the additional elements are considered to see if they constitute a practical application. The additional elements are a server computer comprising a processor, a client device having a user interface, storing data, and establishing a server/client session. The server and client device are both generic computing components performing generic computing functions (including establishing communication between devices), amounting to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Storing data and receiving/transmitting data (i.e. via an established network connection) is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
At step 2B, the additional elements are again considered to see if they are significantly more than the abstract idea. The server and client devices as generic computing components performing generic computing functions are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the steps of storing data and receiving/transmitting data have been established as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected based on the analysis above.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 further limit the abstract idea, and would therefore be rejected using the same rationale as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2013/0297521) in view of Cen et al. (US 2019/0385221).
With reference to claim 1, Campbell et al. teaches a method for providing a user interface to information regarding donations to organizations, comprising:
a) obtaining in at least one server computer first affinity information selected by a first donor user and storing the first affinity information in a first data object associated with the first donor user (see paragraph 41 – data store 112 stores information about donors);
b) obtaining in the at least one server computer second affinity information relating to each of a plurality of organizations, wherein the second affinity information for each organization corresponds to an attribute of the organization (see paragraph 38 – wishlist containing information about recipient 102);
c) responsive to establishment of a server/client session between the at least one server computer and a first client computing device subsequent to step a), determining in a computer processor of the at least one server computer a subset of the plurality of organizations based on a correlation of the first affinity information and the second affinity information using at least the first data object (see paragraph 42 – user device 114 connects to server device 110, then see paragraph 53 – donor can view a webpage with categories, and then further lists of non-profits); and
d) providing graphic card information relating to the subset of organizations to the first client computing device (see paragraph 55 – wishlists of recipients can be shown to the donor).
Campbell et al. fails to teach:
wherein the graphic card information is configured to be displayed on a user interface of the first client computing device such that a graphic card is displayed on the first client computing device corresponding to each of the subset of the plurality of organizations; and
wherein each graphic card includes text identifying and an image corresponding to one of the subset of the plurality of organizations.
Cen et al. teaches:
wherein the graphic card information is configured to be displayed on a user interface of the first client computing device such that a graphic card is displayed on the first client computing device corresponding to each of the subset of the plurality of organizations (see Figure 12 and paragraph 92 – the user can select the charity they are specifically interested in); and
wherein each graphic card includes text identifying and an image corresponding to one of the subset of the plurality of organizations (see Figure 12 – text is the name of the organization and the image is the organization logo. See also Figure 19 – each item within each organization also has further text and images associated with it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the visual representation of organizations as taught by Cen with the donor and recipient profiles as taught by Campbell to facilitate a simpler user experience that allows for more transparency, accountability, and efficiency of donation giving and charity activities (Cen, paragraph 2).
With reference to claim 2, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Campbell et al. further teaches wherein the graphic card information is configured such that each graphic card includes a first link selectable by the user interface, the first link associated with the organization identified in the graphic card (see paragraph 54 – clicking on a link associated with the recipient), and the method further comprising:
responsive at least in part to selection of the first link, providing on the user interface a transaction operation for transferring funds to the organization identified in the graphic card (see paragraphs 55-56 – donors can view wishlists and then donate a portion of an item to the recipient, i.e. some amount of money).
With reference to claim 3, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 2, and Campbell et al. further teaches responsive to receiving a selected first link of a first organization, providing further graphic card information, wherein the further graphic card information is configured to be displayed on a user interface of the client computing device such that a further graphic card is displayed identifying each of the subset of items corresponding to donation needs of the organization, the graphic cards identifying a cost per item, a quantity of items needed, and a further link to a transaction operation (see paragraphs 55-56 – the wishlists contain items, prices of items, quantity of the item desired by recipient, etc. and further clicking on a link may allow for donating toward the particular item).
With reference to claim 4, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 3, and Campbell et al. further teaches wherein step b) comprises:
causing a display on a second client computing device a predetermined set of affinities; receiving at the at least one server computer from the second client computer information identifying at least one of the predetermined set of affinities, wherein the identified at least one of the predetermined set of affinities comprises the second affinity information relating to the organization (see paragraphs 24, 25, 47 – multiple donors may access the recipient wishlists, and see paragraph 52-53 – the list of recipients can be organized in a variety of ways, including categories).
With reference to claim 5, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 4, and Campbell et al. further teaches wherein the at least one server computer limits the identified at least one of the predetermined set of affinities to a predetermined number, wherein the predetermined number is less than a quantity of the affinities in the predetermined set of affinities (see paragraph 52 – the list of recipients can be organized by category, with each recipient assigned to a single category).
With reference to claim 6, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Campbell et al. further teaches:
e) obtaining in the at least one server computer third affinity information relating to each of a plurality of items, the items corresponding to donation needs of the plurality of organizations, wherein the third affinity information for each item corresponds to an attribute of the item (see paragraph 37 – created wishlist);
f) determining in the computer processor of the at least one server computer a subset of the plurality of items based on a correlation of the first affinity information and the third affinity information (see paragraphs 52-55 – donors can select categories and items within those categories are shown, such that recipients must have been categorized by affinity);
g) providing further graphic card information relating to the subset of items to the first client computing device, wherein the further graphic card information is configured to be displayed on the user interface of the client computing device such that a further graphic card is displayed identifying each item of the subset of the plurality of items, each further graphic card identifying a cost per item, a quantity of items needed, and a further link to a transaction operation (see paragraphs 55-57 – all previously entered information for each wishlist item can be shown, the donor may click a link to donate an amount corresponding to a wishlist item).
With reference to claim 8, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 6, and Campbell et al. further teaches wherein step a) further comprise obtaining in a at least one server computer first affinity information selected by each of a plurality of further donor users (see paragraph 41 – donors can enter information about themselves, including affinities).
Cen et al. further teaches: h) determining in the computer processor of the at least one server computer a subset of the plurality of further donor users based on a correlation of the first affinity information of the first donor user and the first affinity information of the plurality of further donor users; i) providing additional graphic card information relating to the subset of the plurality of further donor users to the first client computing device, wherein the additional graphic card information is configured to be displayed on the user interface of the first client computing device such that a further graphic card is displayed identifying each of the subset of the plurality of further donor users, the graphic cards identifying corresponding donor identification information and donation statistics corresponding to the donor identification information (see Figure 17 and paragraph 95 – community interface viewable by user).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 10, Campbell et al. teaches a method for providing a user interface to information regarding donations to organizations, comprising:
a) providing to at least one server computer first affinity information selected by a first donor user via a computing device user interface (see paragraph 41 – data store 112 stores information about donors);
b) after establishment of a server/client session between the at least one server computer and a first client computing device subsequent to step a), obtaining in a first client computing device from the at least one server computer graphic card information relating to a subset of organizations, wherein the subset of organizations have been associated with a second set of affinities in a memory, and wherein the second set of affinities for each organization of the subset of organizations correspond at least in part to the first affinity information (see paragraphs 40, 53-56 – wishlists presented to the user based on information entered by recipients, including affinities);
but fails to teach:
c) displaying simultaneously on a user interface of the first client computing device, based on the obtained graphic card information, a plurality of graphic cards, wherein each graphic card of the plurality of graphic cards corresponds to and identifies a different organization of the subset of the plurality of organizations.
Cen et al. teaches c) displaying simultaneously on a user interface of the first client computing device, based on the obtained graphic card information, a plurality of graphic cards, wherein each graphic card of the plurality of graphic cards corresponds to and identifies a different organization of the subset of the plurality of organizations (see Figure 12 and paragraph 92 – the user can select the charity they are specifically interested in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the visual representation of organizations as taught by Cen with the donor and recipient profiles as taught by Campbell to facilitate a simpler user experience that allows for more transparency, accountability, and efficiency of donation giving and charity activities (Cen, paragraph 2).
With reference to claim 11, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 10, and Cen et al. further teaches wherein each graphic card of the plurality of graphic cards includes text information identifying a corresponding organization and an image associated in a memory of the at least one server with the corresponding organization (see Figure 12 – text is the name of the organization and the image is the organization logo).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 12, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 10, and Cen et al. further teaches displaying at least two of the plurality of graphic cards on the user interface such that the at least two of the plurality of graphic cards are aligned in a horizontal row (see Figure 19).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 13, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Cen et al. further teaches that the subset of organizations comprises multiple organizations (see Figure 12).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. in view of Cen et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Martell (US 2012/0276868).
With reference to claim 7, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 6, and Campbell et al. further teaches using the at least one server computer to provide a first graphical user interface display to the first client computing device (see paragraph 42 – user interface).
Campbell et al. fails to teach the first graphical user interface display including first and second selectable buttons, and wherein: responsive to selection of the first button, performing steps c) and d); and responsive to selection of the second button, performing steps f) and g).
Martell teaches the first graphical user interface display including first and second selectable buttons, and wherein: responsive to selection of the first button, performing steps c) and d); and responsive to selection of the second button, performing steps f) and g) (see Figure 40 – buttons 701, 705, 707, where pressing button 701 displays list of charities 703, pressing 705 for entering donation amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the user interface with selectable buttons of Martell into the interface of Campbell as a simple substitution of one type of interface for another of equivalent function, which would yield predictable results.
With reference to claim 9, Campbell et al. and Cen et al. teach all that is required with reference to claim 8, and Campbell et al. further teaches using the at least one server computer to provide a first graphical user interface display to the first client computing device (see paragraph 42 – user interface).
Campbell et al. fails to teach the first graphical user interface display including first, second and third selectable buttons, and wherein: responsive to selection of the first button, performing steps c) and d); responsive to selection of the second button, performing steps e) and f); and responsive to selection of the third button, performing steps h) and i).
Martell et al. teaches the first graphical user interface display including first, second and third selectable buttons, and wherein: responsive to selection of the first button, performing steps c) and d); responsive to selection of the second button, performing steps e) and f); and responsive to selection of the third button, performing steps h) and i) (see Figure 40 - buttons 701, 705, 707, where pressing button 701 displays list of charities 703, pressing 705 for entering donation amount, pressing 707 for entering amount of change user will donate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the user interface with selectable buttons of Martell into the interface of Campbell as a simple substitution of one type of interface for another of equivalent function, which would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(b) rejection are moot in view of Applicant’s amendments. Regarding the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the storing of data and establishing network connections integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, these steps, as discussed above, have been established by the courts to be no more than insignificant extra-solution activity, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions. Therefore, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the prior art rejections, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights