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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/925,820 filed 10/24/2024. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14-15, and 17 were amended in the reply filed 4/9/2026. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 were amended in the reply filed 9/8/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 8 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the limitation “wherein the operations reduce manual processing of the supplemental corporate donation by automating retrieval of the additional information from the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization without human intervention” does not fall within the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Examiner agrees and has noted the term “automating” as an additional element in the rejection below. However, “automating” is merely an invocation of a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is merely “applied.” See rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the amended claim limitations are not directed to commercial interactions between persons. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, these limitations are still part of an abstract idea which involves handling the donations and donation matching relations between an employer and an employee. This falls within the category of abstract idea “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations).
Applicant further argues that the office action does not identify the newly amended additional elements. This argument is moot, because these additional elements have now been addressed in the rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the Office Action identifies no evidence that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. However, this is not required to reject claims under 35 USC 101. The additional elements are found to be generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is merely “applied.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 15 regarding claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Friedman does not disclose submitting, by an electronic transmission, to a corporate vendor platform operated by a corporation, a request for a supplemental corporate donation, nor receiving from such a platform a response indicating a status of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation to the nonprofit organization. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation is shown to be taught by the cited portions of Friedman in the rejection below. There is no indication from Applicant which portions of this limitation are not taught by Friedman. This response also applies to Applicant’s similar argument regarding the limitations “an indication of consent of the employee, received via a donation form of an external donation platform, to submit a request for a supplemental corporate donation to a corporate vendor platform operated by a corporation. See rejections below.
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not disclose the amended claim limitation regarding the application programming interface connection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the amended rejection below, Friedman teaches using APIs broadly for communicating between devices.
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not disclose one or more employee eligibility criteria. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, Friedman discloses granting access to the system to particular individuals, and also that these particular individuals may be employees. By combining these teachings within Friedman, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would result in Friedman teaching that, from a pool of employees, only particular employees from that pool may be eligible based on the rules described in Friedman [0044].
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not show a distinction between the external donation platform and the corporate vendor platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejections below, Friedman distinctly teaches its platforms being distinct from the user devices 102 and 103 depicted in (Fig. 1) and described in paras [0059-0061], for example.
Applicant further argues that Friedman [0113] does not disclose beneficiary indicator, verifier icons, a progress indicator, a goal of the fundraising event, fundraiser details, and a latest donation amount. However, to teach these limitations Examiner cited (Fig. 10); [0113]; [0069], not just Friedman [0113].
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 20 regarding claims 6, 13, and 19: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but are moot. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0259988) in view of Palty (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0180406) in view of Shah (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0319424).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite non-transitory computer readable media, a method, and a system, respectively, to perform the following steps: receiving, in real-time from an external donation platform via an application programming interface connection, an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of the external donation platform, the external platform being distinct from a corporate vendor platform associated with a corporation employing the employee, the indication of the employee donation comprising an indication of consent of the employee, received via the donation form, to submit a request for a supplemental corporate donation to the corporate vendor platform; determining additional information needed for the corporation to make a supplemental donation to the nonprofit organization; causing collection of the additional information by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of: the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization, and receiving the additional information in response to the one or more requests; determining, based at least in part on one or more rules, the indication of the employee donation, and the collected additional information, that the employee donation is eligible for the supplemental corporate donation; responsive to the indication of consent, submitting, by an electronic transmission, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, the request for the supplemental corporate donation, the request comprising at least a portion of the additional information and the indication of the employee donation; receiving, from the corporate vendor platform, a response indicating a status of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation from the corporation to the nonprofit organization; and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation based at least in part on the response; wherein the operations reduce manual processing of the supplemental corporate donation by automating retrieval of the additional information from the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization without human intervention. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: an article of manufacture, a method, and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving, in real-time ... an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form ... distinct from ... a corporation employing the employee, the indication of the employee donation comprising an indication of consent of the employee, received via the donation form, to submit a request for a supplemental corporate donation to the corporate vendor platform; determining additional information needed for a corporation employing the employee to make a supplemental donation to the nonprofit organization; causing collection of the additional information from one or more of: the donation form and the non-profit organization by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of: ... the nonprofit organization, and receiving the additional information in response to the one or more requests; determining, based at least in part on one or more rules, the indication of the employee donation, and the collected additional information, that the employee donation is eligible for the supplemental corporate donation; responsive to the indication of consent, submitting, by ... transmission ... the request for the supplemental corporate donation, the request comprising at least a portion of the additional information and the indication of the employee donation; receiving ... a response indicating a status of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation from the corporation to the nonprofit organization; and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation based at least in part on the response; wherein the operations reduce manual processing of the supplemental corporate donation by ... retrieval of the additional information from the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization without human intervention, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, one or more non-transitory computer readable media (claim 1), one or more hardware processors (claims 1 and 15), an external donation platform (claims 1, 8, and 15), an application programming interface connection (claims 1, 8, and 15), a computer (claim 8), a computer interface (claim 8), electronic (claim 8), a system (claim 15), at least one device (claim 15), an external donation platform (claims 1, 8, and 15), a corporate vendor platform (claims 1, 8, and 15), electronic (claims 1, 8, and 15), and automating (claims 1, 8, and 15) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, one or more hardware processors, an external donation platform, an application programming interface connection, a computer, a computer interface, electronic, a system, at least one device, an external donation platform, and a corporate vendor platform, electronic, and automating are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. The dependent claims do not comprise any additional elements. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the 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. The dependent claims do not comprise any additional elements. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Friedman (U.S. Pub. No. 20230259988).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Friedman discloses the following limitations:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising: [See [Abstract]; [0294-0295]; Friedman teaches a server used for performing automated platform-based donation matching and security using a non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processor.]
receiving, in real-time from an external donation platform via an application programming interface connection, an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of the external donation platform, the external donation platform being distinct from a corporate vendor platform associated with a corporation employing the employee, the indication of the employee donation comprising an indication of consent of the employee, received via the donation form, to submit a request for a supplemental corporate donation to the corporate vendor platform; [See [0179] Friedman teaches that users of the system may be employees and employers. Friedman [0052] further teaches donations going to a non-profit organization. Friedman [0026]; (Figs. 2-4); teaches a plurality of platforms working in concert in order to perform its disclosed functions. One of these platforms is a fundraising platform (i.e., an external donation platform) where a fundraiser may be shared and displayed, and which a user may interact with in order to perform a donation. Friedman [0044]; (Fig. 1, element 103) further teaches that the described fundraising platform being distinct from the sponsor device 103 (i.e., the external donation platform being distinct from a corporate vendor platform) operated by an entity that has agreed to match donations (i.e., a corporate vendor platform associated with a corporation employing the employee). Friedman (Fig. 4, elements 402, 404); [0079]; further teaches receiving an indication that a donation has been made by a user (i.e., receiving, in real-time from an external donation platform ... an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of an external donation platform). Friedman [0299-0300] further teaches that communication may be performed between the devices using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (i.e., via an application programming interface connection). Friedman [0041]; (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093]; [0097]; teaches that the user may initiate a request for a sponsor to match their donation, and the system sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., the indication of the employee donation comprising an indication of consent of the employee, received via the donation form, to submit a request for a supplemental corporate donation to the corporate vendor platform).]
determining additional information needed for a corporation employing the employee to make a supplemental donation to the nonprofit organization; [See [0044] Friedman teaches that “matching” a donation involves a transfer of funds in the same amount as another transfer of funds. Friedman further teaches that donation matches can be conditioned on one or more rules, such as particular fundraising events, particular causes (e.g., social justice, animal support, climate change, education, etc.) (i.e., determining additional information needed for a corporation employing the employee to make a supplemental donation to the nonprofit organization), particular individuals (e.g., employees only), particular geographic locations, etc.]
causing collection of additional information by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of: the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization, and receiving the additional information in response to the one or more requests; [See [0044] Friedman teaches that “matching” a donation involves a transfer of funds in the same amount as another transfer of funds. Friedman further teaches that donation matches can be conditioned on one or more rules, such as particular fundraising events, particular causes (e.g., social justice, animal support, climate change, education, etc.), particular individuals (e.g., employees only), particular geographic locations, etc. Friedman [0052] further teaches donations going to a non-profit organization. Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113]; [0069] further teaches that when a user wishes to donate and/or match to raise funds for a cause the user may navigate the user interface on their user device (i.e., transmitting one or more requests to one or more of ... the nonprofit organization) such that cause information from the fundraising organization may be displayed such as a beneficiary indicator, information regarding the fundraising event at issue, verification icons indicating that the entity associated is authenticated, the goal of the fundraising event, etc. provided by the fundraiser organizer (i.e., causing collection of additional information by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of ... the nonprofit organization, and receiving the additional information in response to the one or more requests).]
determining, based at least in part on one or more rules, the indication of the employee donation, and the collected additional information, that the employee donation is eligible for the supplemental corporate donation; [See [0044] Friedman teaches that “matching” a donation involves a transfer of funds in the same amount as another transfer of funds. Friedman further teaches that donation matches can be conditioned on one or more rules, such as particular fundraising events, particular causes (e.g., social justice, animal support, climate change, education, etc.), particular individuals (e.g., employees only), particular geographic locations, etc. Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113]; further teaches that cause information may be displayed on a match sponsor user interface, which may be used to determine whether or not a match should be made according to the donation matching rules of the match sponsor. If the donation meets the matching rules of the match sponsor (i.e., determining, based at least in part on one or more rules, the indication of the employee donation, and the collected additional information, that the employee donation is eligible for the supplemental corporate donation), then a matching donation may be made via the user interface element “match.”]
responsive to the indication of consent, submitting, by an electronic transmission, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, a request for the supplemental corporate donation, the request comprising at least a portion of the additional information and the indication of the employee donation; [See [0026] Friedman teaches a plurality of platforms working in concert in order to perform its disclosed functions. Friedman [0044]; (Fig. 1, element 103) further teaches that the described fundraising platform being distinct from the sponsor device 103 operated by an entity that has agreed to match donations (i.e., the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation). Friedman [0041]; (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093]; [0097] teaches that the user may initiate a request for a sponsor to match their donation (i.e., responsive to the indication of consent), and the system sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., submitting, by an electronic transmission, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, the request for the supplemental corporate donation). Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that this request may take the form of a displayed request on a user interface. Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that the displayed request on the user interface may include information regarding the cause to which the donation is going (i.e., the additional information), a donor identifier, and the amount donated (i.e., the request comprising at least a portion of the additional information and the indication of the employee donation).]
receiving, from the corporate vendor platform, a response indicating a status of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation from the corporation to the nonprofit organization; and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation based at least in part on the response; [See [0041]; (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093]; [0097] Friedman teaches that the user may initiate a request for a sponsor to match their donation, and the system sending a request for confirmation that a matching donation should be made and a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., receiving, from the corporate vendor platform, a response indicating a status of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation from the corporation to the nonprofit organization). Friedman [0100]; (Fig. 7, element 718); further teaches that at block 718, the payment service 104 may deposit the funds from the donation and the additional funds from the matching sponsor from the holding account 146 to a beneficiary account 752 associated with the beneficiary. Deposit of such funds may be based at least in part on the one or more conditions described herein being satisfied. In examples, a notification of the one or more conditions being satisfied may be presented to the donors, sponsors, or other entities associated with the fundraising event. Furthermore, Friedman [0223]; (Fig. 17); teaches the payment platform may send notifications to the recipient of donations (i.e., and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation based at least in part on the response).]
wherein the operations reduce manual processing of the supplemental corporate donation by automating retrieval of the additional information from the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization without human intervention. [See (Fig. 10); [0113]; [0069] Friedman teaches that when a user wishes to donate and/or match to raise funds for a cause the user may navigate the user interface on their user device (i.e., transmitting one or more requests to one or more of ... the nonprofit organization) such that cause information from the fundraising organization may be automatically gathered and displayed such as a beneficiary indicator, information regarding the fundraising event at issue, verification icons indicating that the entity associated is authenticated, the goal of the fundraising event, etc. provided by the fundraiser organizer (i.e., wherein the operations reduce manual processing of the supplemental corporate donation by automating retrieval of the additional information from the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization without human intervention).]
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Friedman discloses all claim 1, 8, and 15 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
notifying the nonprofit organization of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation. [See [0100]; (Fig. 7, element 718); Friedman teaches that at block 718, the payment service 104 may deposit the funds from the donation and the additional funds from the matching sponsor from the holding account 146 to a beneficiary account 752 associated with the beneficiary. Deposit of such funds may be based at least in part on the one or more conditions described herein being satisfied. In examples, a notification of the one or more conditions being satisfied may be presented to the donors, sponsors, or other entities associated with the fundraising event. Furthermore, Friedman [0223]; (Fig. 17); teaches the payment platform may send notifications to the recipient of donations (i.e., notifying the nonprofit organization of disbursement of the supplemental corporate donation).]
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Friedman discloses all claim 1, 8, and 15 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
causing storage of data associated with the submitted supplemental corporate donation. [See [0063] Friedman teaches that when a user makes a donation and when a matching sponsor makes a donation, such a donation may have tax implications, such as for tax write-off purposes. Records of such donations should generally be maintained for audit purposes and for accurate recordkeeping. When the tax-based functionality of the payment service 104 is enabled, data indicating a given donation may be associated with a user profile of the user and saved in a database associated with the tax component 148 (i.e., causing storage of data associated with the submitted supplemental corporate donation).]
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Friedman discloses all claim 1 and 8 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the indication of the employee donation comprises one or more of: an EIN associated with the nonprofit organization, a donation amount, or an employee identifier. [See (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093] Friedman teaches sending a withdrawal request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., the employee donation). Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that this request may take the form of a displayed request on a user interface (i.e., the notification of the employee donation). Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that the displayed request on the user interface may include information regarding the cause to which the donation is going, a donor identifier (i.e., the notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: ... an employee identifier), and the amount donated (i.e., the notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: ... a donation amount ...).]
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Friedman discloses all claim 1 and 8 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more rules comprise one or more employee eligibility criteria and at least one of: a minimum donation dollar amount to be matched, a maximum donation dollar amount to be matched, or a donation match ratio. [See Friedman [0044] teaches matches can be conditioned on one or more rules such as matching only donations from particular individuals (i.e., one or more rules comprise one or more employee eligibility criteria). [0138] further teaches determining whether a match limit associated with the sponsor has been met. For example, the sponsor preferences may indicate a maximum amount of money that is to be utilized in a given period of time for matching sponsor donations (i.e., wherein the one or more rules comprises at least one of: ... a maximum donation dollar amount to be matched ...). The match limit may be based on the maximum amount of money, or on other factors such as a number of matches the sponsor has been involved in.]
Regarding claim 18, Friedman discloses all claim 15 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the indication of the employee donation comprises one or more of: an EIN associated with the nonprofit organization, a donation amount, or an employee identifier; [See (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093] Friedman teaches sending a withdrawal request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., the employee donation). Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that this request may take the form of a displayed request on a user interface (i.e., the notification of the employee donation). Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] further teaches that the displayed request on the user interface may include information regarding the cause to which the donation is going, a donor identifier (i.e., the notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: ... an employee identifier), and the amount donated (i.e., the notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: ... a donation amount ...).]
wherein the one or more rules comprise one or more employee eligibility criteria and at least one of: a minimum donation dollar amount to be matched, a maximum donation dollar amount to be matched, one or more employee eligibility criteria, or a donation match ratio. [See Friedman [0044] teaches matches can be conditioned on one or more rules such as matching only donations from particular individuals (i.e., one or more rules comprise one or more employee eligibility criteria). Friedman (Fig. 6); [0090] further teaches displaying an indication that the donation match ratio is 1:1 (i.e., matching the full amount) (i.e., a donation match ratio). Friedman [0138] further teaches determining whether a match limit associated with the sponsor has been met. For example, the sponsor preferences may indicate a maximum amount of money that is to be utilized in a given period of time for matching sponsor donations (i.e., wherein the one or more rules comprises at least one of: ... a maximum donation dollar amount to be matched ...). The match limit may be based on the maximum amount of money, or on other factors such as a number of matches the sponsor has been involved in.]
Regarding claims 7, Friedman discloses all claim 1 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the application programming interface connection is invoked by the external donation platform responsive to a determination that the corporation participates in an automatic donation matching program. [See [0179] Friedman teaches that users of the system may be employees and employers. Friedman [0052] further teaches donations going to a non-profit organization. Friedman [0026]; (Figs. 2-4); teaches a plurality of platforms working in concert in order to perform its disclosed functions. One of these platforms is a fundraising platform where a fundraiser may be shared and displayed, and which a user may interact with in order to perform a donation. Friedman [0044]; (Fig. 1, element 103) further teaches that the described fundraising platform being distinct from the sponsor device 103 operated by an entity that has agreed to match donations. Friedman (Fig. 4, elements 402, 404); [0079]; further teaches receiving an indication that a donation has been made by a user. Friedman [0299-0300] further teaches that communication may be performed between the devices using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (i.e., application programming interface connection). Friedman [0041]; (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093]; [0097]; teaches that the user may initiate a request for a sponsor to match their donation, and the system sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation. Alternatively, Friedman [0097] further teaches automatically performing a withdrawal from a sponsor matching the donation (i.e., wherein the application programming interface connection is invoked by the external donation platform responsive to a determination that the corporation participates in an automatic donation matching program).]
Regarding claim 14, Friedman discloses all claim 8 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the application programming interface connection is invoked by the external donation platform. [See [0179] Friedman teaches that users of the system may be employees and employers. Friedman [0052] further teaches donations going to a non-profit organization. Friedman [0026]; (Figs. 2-4); teaches a plurality of platforms working in concert in order to perform its disclosed functions. One of these platforms is a fundraising platform where a fundraiser may be shared and displayed, and which a user may interact with in order to perform a donation. Friedman [0044]; (Fig. 1, element 103) further teaches that the described fundraising platform being distinct from the sponsor device 103 operated by an entity that has agreed to match donations. Friedman (Fig. 4, elements 402, 404); [0079]; further teaches receiving an indication that a donation has been made by a user. Friedman [0299-0300] further teaches that communication may be performed between the devices using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (i.e., application programming interface connection). Friedman [0041]; (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093]; [0097]; teaches that the user may initiate a request for a sponsor to match their donation, and the system sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation. Alternatively, Friedman [0097] further teaches automatically performing a withdrawal from a sponsor matching the donation (i.e., wherein the application programming interface connection is invoked by the external donation platform).]
Regarding claim 20, Friedman discloses all claim 15 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the donation form displays information related to at least a portion of the one or more rules. [See Friedman [0044] teaches matches can be conditioned on one or more rules such as matching only donations from particular individuals. Friedman [0138] further teaches determining whether a match limit associated with the sponsor has been met. For example, the sponsor preferences may indicate a maximum amount of money that is to be utilized in a given period of time for matching sponsor donations. The match limit may be based on the maximum amount of money, or on other factors such as a number of matches the sponsor has been involved in. Friedman (Fig. 6); [0090] further teaches displaying an indication that the donation match ratio is 1:1 (i.e., matching the full amount) (i.e., wherein the donation form displays information related to at least a portion of the one or more rules).]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0259988) in view of Palty (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0180406) in view of Shah (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0319424).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19 Friedman discloses all claim 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 18 limitations. Friedman [0044] teaches that “matching” a donation involves a transfer of funds in the same amount as another transfer of funds. Friedman further teaches that donation matches can be conditioned on one or more rules, such as particular fundraising events, particular causes (e.g., social justice, animal support, climate change, education, etc.) (i.e., additional information), particular individuals (i.e., donor identification) (e.g., employees only)) (i.e., additional information), particular geographic locations, etc. Friedman does not, however, disclose that such additional information such as donor identification comprises a work email address. Therefore, Friedman does not disclose the following limitations. Palty, however, does remedy these deficiencies of Friedman.
wherein the additional information comprises ... a work email address associated with the employee [See [0002] Palty teaches donation matching by corporation employers for fulfilling corporate social responsibilities and boosting employee morale. Palty [0018] further teaches that a donation authorization can comprise a donation amount and a donor token for the donor. The donor token can be uniquely associated with a sender account associated with the donor and maintained by a sender financial institution. The donation amount can correspond to a donee token for a donee, wherein the donee token is uniquely associated with a receiver account for the donee and maintained by a receiver financial institution. Palty [0019] further teaches that the donor token can be a public token (e.g., an email address). Palty [0025] further teaches its system identifying employees based on
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the donor identification methods of Friedman with the donor identification methods of Palty. By making this combination, a matching sponsor in the system of Friedman would be able to quickly identify a donor as an employee via their email address. With the donor identified via a registered email address instead of simply a name, a matching sponsor employer of Friedman would be able to quickly recognize a donor as one of their employees and thereby validate that matching their donation would be appropriate.
Friedman in view of Palty does not, however Shah does, disclose the following limitations:
... an employee identification number ... [See [0029] Shah teaches that user identification information associated with an account used to interface with the system include both an email address and an employee identification number (i.e., an employee identification number).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the user identification information of Friedman in view of Palty with the user identification information of Shah. By making this combination, the user could be more easily identified, and their identity could also be more easily verified and authenticated by the system.
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in prior art rejections:
Hicks (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0343043) – System and method for charitable giving
Mateer (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0129955) – Systems and methods for charitable giving
Brown (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0304186) – Directed charitable giving system
Worth (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0206201) – Computerized system for managing the distribution of corporate donations
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
