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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-12, 20-27) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024, 03/13/2025, 05/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
With respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, they recite the following conditions and corresponding contingent steps:
With respect to claim 1, since the claim does not require the condition of “if the digital item transfer interaction request is received”, the contingent step “performing digital item transfer interaction processing…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 2, since the claim does not require the condition of “a backup resource is allocated to the member group”, the contingent step “performing operations…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 2, since the claim does not require the condition of “no backup resource is allocated”, the contingent step “performing digital item transfer processing…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 3, since the claim does not require the condition of “the digital item transfer information satisfies a backup digital item transfer condition”, the contingent step “performing digital item transfer processing…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 5, since the claim does not require the condition of “a confirmation request for the digital item transfer record is received”, the contingent step “updating the available resource amount…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 7, since the claim does not require the condition of “the backup update type is a first update type”, the contingent step “the available resource amount…remains unchanged” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 8, since the claim does not require the condition of “the backup update type is a second update type”, the contingent step “obtaining an update cycle condition…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 8, since the claim does not require the condition of “it is detected that the update time arrives”, the contingent step “updating the available resource amount…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 9, since the claim does not require the condition of “a write-off request …is received”, the contingent step “determining a resource account…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
With respect to claim 10, since the claim does not require the condition of “a record voucher request…is received”, the contingent step “generating voucher addition reminder information…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
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 1-12, 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite performing a digital item transfer, comprising: “receiving a digital item transfer request…”, “performing digital item transfer processing…”, “generating digital item transfer interaction messages…”, “performing digital item transfer interaction processing…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of performing a digital item transfer, comprising: “receiving a digital item transfer request…”, “performing digital item transfer processing…”, “generating digital item transfer interaction messages…”, “performing digital item transfer interaction processing…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In addition, the step of pushing the write-off log to display the write-off log, and pushing the record voucher to display the record voucher constitutes extra solution activity because (1) these techniques are well known, (2) this is insignificant extra solution activity and (3) is mere data gathering or outputting. This is a post-solution step that is not integrated into the claim as a whole.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “receiving a digital item transfer request…”, “performing digital item transfer processing…”, “generating digital item transfer interaction messages…”, “performing digital item transfer interaction processing…” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of performing a digital item transfer merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., processor, storage, interface) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., receiving, performing, generating) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed transfer request, transfer information, transfer record, interaction messages, member permission, interaction tags are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of performing a digital item transfer, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, receiving a request, performing transfer processing, generating messages, performing interaction processing, querying whether a resource is allocated, determining if information satisfies a condition, a condition including a resource amount being less than or equal to an amount, receiving a confirmation request, obtaining a resource allocation request, collection a type, collecting a resource parameter uploaded by an institution, determining resource information allocated, configuring a resource amount based on a type, determining a type is a first type, determining a type is a second type, calculating an update time, detecting that an update time arrives, submit a write-off request, transferring a resource, generating a write-off log, submitting a voucher request, generating reminder information, pushing information, display a voucher, determining a member has a permission, generating a review tag, a tag is empty, a tag includes a confirmation tag which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Similarly, updating a resource amount, updating an available resource amount, obtaining a record uploaded is merely storing, updating and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further note that the abstract idea of performing a digital item transfer to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., a donor requests to make a donation to a charitable fund, solicitations are sent to potential matching donor funds to match the donation, and matching donor funds request to match the donation in response to the solicitations.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 20, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (USP App Pub 2010/0268642).
Regarding claim 1, A digital item transfer interaction processing method, comprising:
receiving a digital item transfer request (Zhu: paragraph [0083], “In operation 402, a request from patrons 112 … is received and initial consideration from initiating patron 112A to the entity 110 is posted” i.e., consideration from 112A is transferred; “The consideration may be one or more of a monetary unit, a credit, a point, a tangible asset, an intangible asset, a valuable good”) submitted by a member terminal (Zhu: Figure 1, initiator device 102) of a target member in a member group of an institution (Zhu: Figure 1, initiating patron 112A is a patron in a group of patrons 112), wherein the digital item transfer request is generated after a digital item transfer interface configured for the member group is triggered (Zhu: paragraph [0007], “The initiator device … may be…a cell phone”; paragraph [0085], “an initiating patron 112A may post one task along with initial consideration (e.g., using the initiator device 102 of FIG. 1) and may provide entity 110 contact information”);
performing digital item transfer processing (Zhu: paragraph [0085], “In operation 504, it may be determined whether the contact information provided by the initiating patron 112A may be valid or not (e.g., using a validation module 200 of FIG. 2)”; paragraph [0066], “The pledge module 218 may allocate the initial consideration and the additional consideration through an account funded through a subscription service and/or a trusted financial intermediary”) on digital item transfer information carried in the digital item transfer request (Zhu: paragraph [0085], “In operation 502, an initiating patron 112A may post one task along with initial consideration (e.g., using the initiator device 102 of FIG. 1)”), and obtaining a digital item transfer record (Zhu: Figure 5A, after step 504 YES, execute step 510 to post the request and the consideration pool i.e., the request in combination with the consideration pool correspond to the claimed digital item transfer record);
generating digital item transfer interaction messages of institutional members in the member group (Zhu: paragraph [0020], “The system may include a private module to enable generation of a private request shared only with invitees and the entity”) for the digital item transfer record (Zhu: paragraph [0087], “If the request may be private then operation 512A may be initiated”) based on member permission of the institutional members (Zhu: paragraph [0067], “a private group that can only be subscribed by the patrons 112 who are invited by the patron who started the private group”), wherein the digital item transfer interaction messages (Zhu: paragraph [0102], “the user interface view 650B displays the patron view having a submission format for the patrons 112 to fill the request along with the consideration and submit the offer to the respondent 633”; paragraph [0020], “a private request shared only with invitees”) carry interaction tags of the corresponding institutional members (Zhu: Figure 6B, request ID: A101145 is a tag and minimal contribution limit US $1 is also a tag corresponding to the interaction for a supporting patron; paragraph [0100], “For example the private request may be shared only among invitees”); and
performing digital item transfer interaction processing (Zhu: Figure 5A, step 512c supporter add consideration to consideration pool; paragraph [0087], “In operation 512C, supporter (e.g., the different patrons 112B of FIG. 1) may add additional consideration (e.g., may be something of value provided by the patron 112 to the entity 110, such as money, goods and services that will compel the entity 110 for response”; paragraph [0066], “The pledge module 218 may allocate the initial consideration and the additional consideration through an account funded through a subscription service and/or a trusted financial intermediary”) to the aggregation environment 114 initiated by the initiating patron 112A”) on a digital item transfer interaction request submitted by an institutional member (Zhu: paragraph [0102], “to fill the request along with the consideration and submit the offer to the respondent 633”; paragraph [0100], “FIG. 6B illustrates…a my consideration 636”; Figure 6B, my consideration 636 is a supporting patron’s submission of their contribution of consideration to the money pool) based on an interaction tag (Zhu: Figure 6B, minimal contribution limit US $1 is a tag corresponding to the interaction for a supporting patron), if the digital item transfer interaction request is received (Zhu: paragraph [0083], “In operation 402, a request from patrons 112 … is received”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an interaction tag of the target member (Zhu: paragraph [0111], “FIG. 9A is a form and table view 950A associated with a patron 906A”) is empty or a voucher submission tag (Zhu: Figure 9A, attributes of money pool size are associated with a particular patron who ‘submitted’ an order; paragraph [0111], “Open Offer form 902A that shows open offers submitted or participated by the patron 906A” i.e., money pool size is a tag associated with an interaction between patron and entity and is part of a submission to the entity); and
an interaction tag of an institutional member other than the target member in the member group (Zhu: paragraph [0102], “the user interface view 650B displays the patron view having a submission format for the patrons 112 to fill the request along with the consideration and submit the offer to the respondent 633”) includes a record confirmation tag (Zhu: Figure 6B, request ID: A101145 is a record confirmation tag for the request 630), a record return tag, and/or a voucher request tag.
Re. claims 20, 27, they recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 21-23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Palty et al. (USP App Pub 2022/0180406; hereinafter Palty).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the performing digital item transfer processing on the digital item transfer information carried in the digital item transfer request (Zhu: paragraph [0085], “In operation 504, it may be determined whether the contact information provided by the initiating patron 112A may be valid or not (e.g., using a validation module 200 of FIG. 2)”) includes: …
performing digital item transfer processing on the digital item transfer information based on a resource account of the target member (Zhu: paragraph [0066], “The pledge module 218 may allocate the initial consideration and the additional consideration through an account funded through a subscription service and/or a trusted financial intermediary”).
Zhu does not teach …querying whether a backup resource is allocated to the member group; and in response to no backup resource is allocated, …
However, in the same field of endeavor, Palty does teach …querying whether a backup resource is allocated to the member group (Palty: paragraph [0043], “method 200 can include block 210 of a system receiving, through a computer network, a donation authorization from a donor, via a donor user interface executed on a donor device”; paragraph [0045], “method 200 further can include block 220 of the system, such as system 100 or 110 (FIG. 1), determining, in real-time, whether the donation authorization complies with a matching policy of the matching donor, such as matching donor 155 (FIG. 1). The matching policy can include one or more rules related to one or more of: (a) whose donation is eligible to trigger donation matching” i.e., block 220 corresponds to the querying step. A matching donation from a matching donor is a backup source of funds because block 240 of FIG. 2 transfers sender account donation funds independent of a potential matching contribution); and
in response to no backup resource is allocated (Palty: paragraph [0045], “The matching policy can include one or more rules related to one or more of: (a) whose donation is eligible to trigger donation matching; (b) what kind of donee is eligible to receive donation matching; and/or (c) one or more budget limitations, etc.”; FIG. 2, step 240 transfers donation amounts from the sender account independent of whatever matching donation is approved/allocated from the matching sender account i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such criteria establish a condition which may not be satisfied, and therefore only sender account donations will be transferred in step 240),…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the donation system of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Palty to attempt to procure matching donation funds from a matching donor, based on donations made by an original donor. The motivation for doing so is to increase the amount of money being donated (Palty: paragraph [0002], “Donation matching benefits charities by increasing their revenues”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to a backup resource is allocated to the member group (Palty: paragraph [0021], “determining, in real-time, whether the donation authorization complies with a matching policy of the matching donor”; FIG. 2, step 220), performing operations including:
in response to the digital item transfer information satisfies a backup digital item transfer condition corresponding to backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0022], “after determining that the donation authorization complies with the matching policy, determining, in real-time, a matching donation amount based at least in part on the matching policy … the matching donation amount can be determined based on the donation amount to be made by the donor, such as a certain percentage of the donation amount (10%...)”; FIG. 2, step 230), performing digital item transfer processing on the digital item transfer information based on a resource account corresponding to the backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0048], “method 200 further can include block 250 of the system, such as system 100 or 110 (FIG. 1), facilitating, through the computer network, such as network 160 (FIG. 1), a second electronic fund transfer of the matching donation amount from the matching sender account, such as matching sender account 131 (FIG. 1), maintained by the matching sender financial institution, such as matching sender financial institution system 130 (FIG. 1), to the receiver account, such as receiver account 141”), and obtaining the digital item transfer record (Zhu: Figure 5A, after step 504 YES, execute step 510 to post the request and the consideration pool i.e., the request in combination with the consideration pool correspond to the claimed digital item transfer record); and
updating a backup resource amount in the backup resource information to an available resource amount based on a digital item transfer resource amount included in the digital item transfer information (Palty: paragraph [0024], “The one or more donation matching criteria of an exemplary matching policy can include: … a maximum accumulated amount or a maximum count of donations made by the donor that the matching donor is willing to match per month, year, or another period of time”; paragraph [0077], “the one or more steps 424 also can comprise the system facilitating, through the computer network, a second electronic fund transfer of the donation amount from the matching sender account, such as matching sender account 131 (FIG. 1), maintained by the matching sender financial institution, such as MATCHING SENDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SYSTEM” i.e., an electronic fund transfer out of the matching sender’s account, with a policy restricting a maximum accumulated amount would necessarily record amounts transferred to make a determination if the accumulated amount exceeds a maximum).
The motivation to combine references for claim 3 is the same as the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the backup digital item transfer condition (Palty: paragraph [0024], “the matching policy”) includes at least one of (Broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim only requires one of the conditions to occur):
the digital item transfer resource amount included in the digital item transfer information is less than or equal to the backup resource amount,
a member identifier of the target member is recorded in an available member list configured in the backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0024], “The one or more donation matching criteria of an exemplary matching policy can include: (a) eligibility of a donor, such as whether the donor is a full-time employee”), or
a digital item transfer time recorded in the digital item transfer information falls within an available time range in the backup resource information.
The motivation to combine references for claim 4 is the same as the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 3, wherein
the backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0022], “the matching donation amount”) is configured as follows:
obtaining a backup resource allocation request of a target institutional member in the member group for the member group (Palty: paragraph [0067], “method 400 also can include a step 411 of the system accepting an application for matching donor registration, through the computer network, by a matching donor via a matching donor user interface executed on a matching donor device of the matching donor, such as MATCHING DONOR DEVICE”);
collecting, based on the backup resource allocation request, a backup update type (Palty: paragraph [0024], “The one or more donation matching criteria of an exemplary matching policy can include: … (d) a maximum amount that the matching donor agrees to spend on a certain donee or a certain type of donees, and/or a maximum accumulated amount or a maximum count of donations made by the donor that the matching donor is willing to match per month, year, or another period of time”) configured by the target institutional member (Palty: paragraph [0024], “one or more donation matching criteria predetermined by the matching donor, via the matching donor user interface executed on the matching donor device”);
collecting a backup resource parameter uploaded by the target institutional member in the backup update type (Palty: paragraph [0024], “one or more donation matching criteria predetermined by the matching donor, via the matching donor user interface executed on the matching donor device”; paragraph [0024], “The one or more donation matching criteria of an exemplary matching policy can include: … (e) a formula to calculate the matching amount, such as a fixed amount or a certain percentage for each matching donation”); and
determining, based on the backup update type and the backup resource parameter, the backup resource information allocated to the member group (Palty: paragraph [0022], “the matching donation amount can be determined based on the donation amount to be made by the donor, such as a certain percentage of the donation amount (10%...)”).
The motivation to combine references for claim 6 is the same as the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 6, wherein the available resource amount in the backup resource information is configured (Palty: paragraph [0024], “a maximum accumulated amount or a maximum count of donations made by the donor that the matching donor is willing to match per month, year, or another period of time”; paragraph [0077], “the one or more steps 424 also can comprise the system facilitating, through the computer network, a second electronic fund transfer of the donation amount from the matching sender account,” i.e., an electronic fund transfer out of the matching sender’s account, with a policy restricting a maximum accumulated amount would necessarily record amounts transferred to make a determination if the accumulated amount exceeds a maximum) based on the backup update type included in the backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0024], “The one or more donation matching criteria of an exemplary matching policy can include: … (d) a maximum amount that the matching donor agrees to spend on a certain donee or a certain type of donees, and/or a maximum accumulated amount or a maximum count of donations made by the donor that the matching donor is willing to match per month, year, or another period of time”); and
in response to the backup update type is a first update type, the available resource amount in the backup resource information remains unchanged (Palty: paragraph [0022], “until the matching donation reaches a maximum amount, such as $10,000” i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a matching donation amount of $9,000 is possible, therefore the donation amount would be unchanged under this condition).
The motivation to combine references for claim 7 is the same as the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Re. claims 21-23, 25-26, they recite analogous limitations as claims 2-4, 6-7, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Palty in further view of McMaster (USP App Pub 2010/0161465).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the performing digital item transfer interaction processing on the digital item transfer interaction request submitted by the institutional member based on the interaction tag, if the digital item transfer interaction request is received (Zhu: Figure 5A, step 512c supporter add consideration to consideration pool), includes: …
in the backup resource information to the backup resource amount (Palty: paragraph [0077], “the one or more steps 424 also can comprise the system facilitating, through the computer network, a second electronic fund transfer of the donation amount from the matching sender account, such as matching sender account 131 (FIG. 1), maintained by the matching sender financial institution, such as MATCHING SENDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SYSTEM”)…
Zhu and Palty do not teach …in response to a confirmation request for the digital item transfer record is received from an institutional member other than the target member in the member group, updating the available resource amount in the backup resource information to the backup resource amount based on the confirmation request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McMaster does teach …in response to a confirmation request for the digital item transfer record is received from an institutional member other than the target member in the member group (McMaster: paragraph [0068], “A block 600 retrieves from the donor database 104 the total donations made by a store, a group of stores, individuals, consumer groups, or organizations”), updating the available resource amount (McMaster: paragraph [0067], “The donation processor 100, in substantially real-time, updates the information that may be displayed by the dashboard. FIG. 5”) …based on the confirmation request (McMastser: paragraph [0070], “The web page has an area 650 that displays the total amount of money collected by the members of the social network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the donation matching system of Zhu and Palty to incorporate the teachings of McMaster to update matching data based on confirmed records. The motivation for doing so is to “show information that may be of interest to the members of the social network” (McMaster: paragraph [0069]).
Re. claim 24, it recites analogous limitations as claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Palty in view of Winkelman et al. (USP App Pub 2005/0125317; hereinafter Winkelman).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
in response to the backup update type is a second update type, obtaining an update cycle condition included in the backup resource information (Palty: paragraph [0024], “a maximum accumulated amount or a maximum count of donations made by the donor that the matching donor is willing to match per month” i.e., the cycle time for the maximum matching donations limit to be reset is one month);
…in the backup resource information to the backup resource amount (Palty: paragraph [0077], “the one or more steps 424 also can comprise the system facilitating, through the computer network, a second electronic fund transfer of the donation amount from the matching sender account, such as matching sender account 131 (FIG. 1), maintained by the matching sender financial institution, such as MATCHING SENDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SYSTEM”).
Zhu and Palty do not teach …calculating an update time for the available resource amount based on a digital item transfer time recorded in the digital item transfer record and the update cycle condition; and in response to it is detected that the update time arrives, updating the available resource amount…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Winkelman does teach …calculating an update time for the available resource amount based on a digital item transfer time recorded in the digital item transfer record and the update cycle condition (Winkelman: paragraph [0053], “determining whether the current date is a certain day of the week or month that matches the reload preferences represented in the trigger data 418 of the auto reload profile 412, such as …the first of each month, etc.”); and
in response to it is detected that the update time arrives, updating the available resource amount (Winkelman: paragraph [0060], “the automatic reload process 500 continues at block 530 to reload the SVC account by incrementing the account balance by the reload amount 420 as stored in profile 412”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the periodic reloading matching donation account of Zhu and Palty to incorporate the teachings of Winkelman to upload an account balance at the first of the month to maintain a monthly maximum limit. The motivation for doing so is so that the account has a consistent balance (Winkelman: paragraph [0021], “Automatically reloading an SVC card substantially increases the likelihood that the SVC card account will have a sufficient cash balance whenever the user presents the SVC card to a merchant for payment”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Palty in further view of Sylvester (USP App Pub 2022/0156803).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu and Palty teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the performing digital item transfer interaction processing on the digital item transfer interaction request submitted by the institutional member based on the interaction tag (Zhu: Figure 5A, step 512c supporter add consideration to consideration pool; paragraph [0087], “In operation 512C, supporter (e.g., the different patrons 112B of FIG. 1), if the digital item transfer interaction request is received (Zhu: paragraph [0083], “In operation 402, a request from patrons 112 … is received”), includes:
…
transferring a resource corresponding to a digital item transfer resource amount recorded in the digital item transfer information in the resource account to a digital item transfer account of the target member (Zhu: paragraph [0047], “allocating, to the initial consideration, an additional consideration provided when a different patron (e.g., the different patron 112B of FIG. 1, a supporter, etc.) contributes the additional consideration to the aggregation environment 114 (e.g., using a pledge module 218 of FIG. 2), and allocating the consideration of the initiating patron 112A and the different patron 112B to the aggregation environment 114 of the request to increase a value of the request to the entity 110” i.e., the additional consideration is allocated ‘to’ the initial consideration given by the initiating patron, who corresponds to the claimed target member); and
Zhu and Palty do not teach …in response to a write-off request for the digital item transfer record submitted by a target institutional member other than the target member in the member group is received, determining a resource account of the target institutional member; … generating a write-off log for the digital item transfer record based on a resource transfer result and a member identifier of the target institutional member, and pushing the write-off log to display the write-off log in an interaction list of the member group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sylvester does teach …in response to a write-off request for the digital item transfer record submitted by a target institutional member (Sylvester: paragraph [0085], “one or more donation campaign inputs can include inputs for…a campaign special event (e.g., a matching gift program…)” i.e., the donor may be a matching fund) other than the target member in the member group is received (Sylvester: paragraph [0075], “the donor device can submit the donation authorization to the sender financial institution (either directly or via an intermediate system such as system 110 (FIG. 1), and the sender financial institution can be configured to process the donation authorization”), determining a resource account of the target institutional member (Sylvester: paragraph [0075], “ the sender financial institution and/or the intermediate system can process the donation authorization by … debiting, in real-time, a fund including the donation amount plus any fees, from the donor account and temporarily withholding the fund in a trust account”);
…
generating a write-off log (Sylvester: paragraph [0065], “The receipt can comprise information associated with at least one of: (a) a donation tax exempt status determined based on the donee information; (b) a donee-specific history of donations made by the donor to the donee; (c) a fundraiser-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraiser of the donee; or (d) a campaign-specific history of donations made by the donor to a fundraising campaign of the donee information”) for the digital item transfer record based on a resource transfer result and a member identifier of the target institutional member (Sylvester: FIG. 3, receipt 322 is sent from system to donor device), and pushing the write-off log to display the write-off log in an interaction list of the member group (Sylvester: paragraph [0065], “providing, in real-time and through the computer network, a receipt of the donation amount to be displayed on the donor user interface of the donor device to the donor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the donation matching system of Zhu and Palty to incorporate the teachings of Sylvester to provide a tax-deduction receipt of donations made by a matching donor. The motivation for doing so is for “claiming charitable deductions as part of the donor's subsequently filed taxes” (Sylvester: paragraph [0055]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Jensen (USP App Pub 2017/0358014).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing digital item transfer interaction processing on the digital item transfer interaction request submitted by the institutional member based on the interaction tag (Zhu: Figure 5A, step 512c supporter add consideration to consideration pool; paragraph [0087], “In operation 512C, supporter (e.g., the different patrons 112B of FIG. 1) includes: …
Zhu does not teach …in response to a record voucher request for the digital item transfer record submitted by a target institutional member other than the target member in the member group is received, generating voucher addition reminder information based on a voucher type carried in the record voucher request, and pushing the information; obtaining a record voucher uploaded by the target member based on the voucher addition reminder information, and associating the record voucher with the digital item transfer record; and pushing the record voucher to display the record voucher in an interaction list of the member group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jensen does teach …in response to a record voucher request (Jensen: paragraph [0076], “the notification … may include token information”) for the digital item transfer record submitted by a target institutional member other than the target member in the member group is received (Jensen: paragraph [0076], “the bank, payment processor, network, payment aggregator, or Merchant notifies the Platform when the Customer transacts at Merchant”), generating voucher addition reminder information based on a voucher type (Jensen: paragraph [0076], “token information that the Platform then matches to the Customer's information”) carried in the record voucher request, and pushing the information (Jensen: paragraph [0077], “the Platform may prompt the Customer to upload their receipt. Such prompt may be driven by a specific trigger, such as … a notification from a payment network as tied to the Customer's payment device” i.e., the prompt corresponds to the claimed reminder);
obtaining a record voucher uploaded by the target member based on the voucher addition reminder information (Jensen: paragraph [0077], “the Customer submits a transaction Receipt to the Platform, which the Platform then validates to confirm accuracy, authenticity, and whether it qualifies for an agreed-upon incentive”), and associating the record voucher with the digital item transfer record (Jensen: paragraph [0061], “the Donations may be listed individually by transaction, or aggregated by Cause to which they have directed those funds. This page may include the Merchant name or logo to help the Customer identify the transaction”); and
pushing the record voucher to display the record voucher in an interaction list of the member group (Jensen: paragraph [0061], “FIG. 9 illustrates a display (e.g. page) where a Customer can see and track the history of Donations tied to their spend at participating Merchants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the donation system of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Jensen to record uploaded donation receipts. The motivation for doing so is that “a Customer can see and track the history of Donations tied to their spend at participating Merchants” (Jensen: paragraph [0061]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Spector (USP App Pub 2005/0004867).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the generating the digital item transfer interaction messages of the institutional members in the member group for the digital item transfer record based on the member permission of the institutional members (Zhu: paragraph [0020], “The system may include a private module to enable generation of a private request shared only with invitees and the entity”) includes:
determining, based on a digital item transfer type corresponding to the digital item transfer request (Zhu: paragraph [0080], “The type (public/private) field 318 may display the type of request (e.g., public request, private request, etc.) submitted by the patrons 112 to the entity 110”), a co-ownership member that has co-ownership permission for the digital item transfer record in the institutional members (Zhu: paragraph [0013], “The group may be a private group accessible only by invitees” i.e., an invitee corresponds to the claimed co-ownership member because the invitee is part of a private group with access to the invite and can make actions based on the request); and …
Zhu does not teach …generating a review tag of the co-ownership member for the digital item transfer record based on the co-ownership permission, and generating a digital item transfer interaction message that includes the review tag.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Spector does teach …generating a review tag of the co-ownership member for the digital item transfer record based on the co-ownership permission (Spector: paragraph [0040], “A private group does not allow the public, i.e., non-members, access to content, such as websites, some of the donation information, and member list, provided by the private group”), and generating a digital item transfer interaction message that includes the review tag (Spector: paragraph [0075], “Group manager 22 may also present member list link 84 within user interface 74 to allow donors 8 to view a list of group members”).
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the donation system of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Spector to include a group list in a message. The motivation for doing so is so that “a group member may view donation totals and invited donation totals for other members of the group to inspire competition or foster group morale” (Spector: paragraph [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights