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 1-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 8 regarding claim 14: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the objection made has been fully considered, and is persuasive. Claim 14 is no longer a substantial duplicate of claim 7.
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 claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, the claims recite a judicial exception within the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions - business relations). Applicant has not provided detailed arguments regarding why the judicial exception highlighted in the Step 2A Prong One analysis below should not be considered a judicial exception.
Applicant further argues that the claims should not be considered a judicial exception because they are analogous to Example 42 of the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG published by the USPTO. Applicant argues that in Example 42 the USPTO found that the claims did not recite a mental process because the operations required machine execution. First, Examiner notes that the instant judicial exception has not been categorized as a mental process. Second, Examiner does not agree that the instant claims are analogous to Example 42. The subject matter eligibility of Example 42 hinged primarily on the conversion of computer readable data from one format to another format. There is no analogous limitation in the instant claims. (Examiner’s Note: Even if the instant claims recited an analogous limitation, which Examiner does not concede, such a limitation is likely to be considered patent ineligible. The real-life case which Example 42 was based upon was later determined to be patent ineligible by the US Court of Appeals (see University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., No. 18-1284 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are analogous to Enfish and McRO, but does not provide evidence to support this conclusion. Under Step 2A, Prong One the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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), 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), and a corporate vendor platform (claims 1, 8, and 15) are merely used as a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is merely “applied.” Applicant argues that the claims The improved speed in which a generic computer environment can perform a data analysis when compared to a manual or mental determination is already considered by the office in its determination that a generic computer environment comprises additional elements, but that those additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is well-understood that generic computer environment can perform calculations more quickly than can be performed by the human mind, but this does not make any application utilizing a generic computer environment patent eligible under 35 USC § 101. Similar to many other applications utilizing generic computer environments, the current application merely uses a generic computer environment to “apply” the abstract idea, thus performing the abstract idea more quickly than if performed mentally or manually (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for a detailed explanation of the USPTO’s view of such claims). "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to Example 39 of the October 2019 Update to the PEG. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear from Applicant’s arguments how the instant claims are analogous to Example 39 which is a method for training a neural network for facial detection. Example 39 was not considered patent eligible subject matter because it collected and processed data. As mentioned above, the instant claims recite an abstract idea while Example 39 was determined not to have recited an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to BASCOM and DDR Holdings, but provides no evidence in support of this conclusion. It is unclear how the instant claims are considered analogous to these cases.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant makes arguments regarding the standards for rejection when additional elements are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional, but these arguments and that standard are not applicable in this case. The additional elements have properly been categorized as generic computer components making up a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea has merely been “applied.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 15 regarding claims 1-20: 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 causing collection of additional information by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of the external donation platform and the nonprofit organization. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, Friedman (Fig. 10); [0113] 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 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. Friedman [0069] further teaches that the fundraiser details may be provided by the organizer of the fundraising event. The combination of these citations describes the system of Friedman requesting fundraiser details from the fundraising organizer such that the fundraiser details may be used to populate a user interface. This teaches causing collection of additional information by transmitting one or more requests to one or more of ... the nonprofit organization.
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not recite submitting, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, a request for the supplemental corporate donation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, Friedman (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093] teaches sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., submitting, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, a request for the supplemental corporate donation).
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not recite receiving an indication of an employee donation from a donation form of an external donation platform, the external donation platform being distinct from the corporate vendor platform associated with the corporation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Friedman [0179] 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 an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of an external donation platform).
Applicant further argues that Friedman does not teach the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Friedman [0179] teaches that users of the system may be employees and employers. Therefore the donors are taught to be employees and the matchers are taught to be employers. Friedman (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093] teaches sending a 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 ...). The donor identifier is an employee identifier because, as established above, the donors are taught to be employees.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 18 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that two of the three claim identifier types are not addressed by the combination of Friedman in view of Palty, but only one of the three claim identifier types are required based on the claim language. Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the limitation, “wherein the additional information comprises one or more of (emphasis added) an employee email address, an employee identification number, or (emphasis added) an employee job title.” Prior art does not need to teach the additional information including all three of: an employee email address, an employee identification number, and an employee job title – it merely needs to teach one of these. Palty teaches one of these by teaching the employee email address element.
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 an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of an external donation platform, the external platform being distinct from a corporate vendor platform associated with a corporation employing the employee; 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 a supplemental corporate donation; submitting, 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; and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation; 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 an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form ... distinct from ... a corporation employing the employee; 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 a supplemental corporate donation; submitting ... 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; and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation; 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, 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), 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), and a corporate vendor platform (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 (described in spec. para. [0011]), one or more hardware processors (described in spec. para. [0151]), a computer (described in spec. para. [0099]), a computer interface (described in spec. para. [0069]), electronic (described in spec. para. [0012]), a system (described in spec. para. [0137]), at least one device (described in spec. para. [0145]), an external donation platform (described in spec. para. [0069]), and a corporate vendor platform (described in spec. para. [0083]), 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 an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of an external donation platform, the external donation platform being distinct from a corporate vendor platform associated with a corporation employing the employee; [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 an indication of an employee donation to a nonprofit organization from a donation form of an external donation 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 a 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 a supplemental corporate donation), then a matching donation may be made via the user interface element “match.”]
submitting, 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 (Fig. 7, element 704); [0093] teaches sending a request for funds from the matching sponsor in accordance with a previous donation (i.e., submitting, to the corporate vendor platform operated by the corporation, a 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).]
and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted 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., and notifying the nonprofit organization of the submitted supplemental corporate donation).]
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 notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: an EIN associated with the non-profit 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 comprises 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 [0138] Friedman 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 notification of the employee donation comprises one or more of: an EIN associated with the non-profit 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 comprises 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 [0138] Friedman 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 and 20, Friedman discloses all claim 1 and 15 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the indication of the employee donation to the nonprofit organization is received in real-time. [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. 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, and the amount donated. Friedman [0112] further teaches that this displayed user interface displaying user donations updates in real time (i.e., wherein the indication of the employee donation to the nonprofit organization is received in real-time).]
Regarding claim 14, Friedman discloses all claim 8 limitations. Friedman further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the indication of the employee donation to the nonprofit organization is received in real-time from the external donation platform ... [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 [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., the 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 [0052] further teaches donations going to a non-profit organization. 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, a donor identifier, and the amount donated. Friedman [0112] further teaches that this displayed user interface displaying user donations updates in real time (i.e., wherein the indication of the employee donation to the nonprofit organization is received in real-time from the external donation platform).]
... via an application programming interface connection. [See [0048-0049]; (Fig. 1, element 138) Friedman teaches its system transmitting and receiving information via application programming interfaces (APIs).]
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).
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 one or more of an employee email address, an employee identification number, or an employee job title. Therefore, Friedman does not disclose the following limitations. Palty, however, does remedy these deficiencies of Friedman.
wherein the additional information comprises one or more of an employee email address, an employee identification number, or an employee job title. [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).]
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.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights