Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
2. Jan Mincarelli is no longer continuing prosecution on application number
19/037,100. It has been transferred to Examiner Jessica Lemieux.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on January 25th, 2025 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on December 11th, 2025. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Priority
4. Application 19/037,100 was filed on January 25th, 2025 which has a provisional application 63/625,115 filed on January 25th, 2024. Examiner however notes that the provisional application 63/625,115 does not provide adequate written description support, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the subject matter presently recited in the claims. Specifically, the provisional application fails to disclose or reasonably convey possession of as recited in claims 1, 11, and 21:
- a progress bar showing a current status of each of the plurality of funding claims and updating as each of the plurality of funding claims advances in status, and
- an interactive timeline visually mapping one or more of the plurality of funding claims through a plurality of processing stages, and a notification panel providing real-time updates on changes to statuses of each of the plurality of funding claims requirements for user action regarding one or more of the plurality of funding claims,
The provisional application does not describe these features, either explicitly or inherently, nor does it provide sufficient detail that would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of these elements at the time of the provisional filing. Accordingly, the claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application 63/625,115 with respect to the above-noted subject matter. The effective filing date of the claims is therefore the filing date of the present non-provisional application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11th, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner Request
6. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on August 12th, 2025, December 22nd, 2025, January 8th, 2026 and February 2nd and 19th , 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Final office action on August 12th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite additional features, which Applicant submits are not directed toward the asserted abstract idea, and even if the amended claims could be construed to include an abstract idea, would incorporate any such abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As amended, representative independent claim 1 recites, receiving information concerning funding claims submitted to charitable organizations, processing the funding claims to determine a status for each claim, and rendering a user interface that displays the status of the claims, including a progress bar, an interactive timeline mapping the claims through processing stages, and a notification panel providing real-time updates. The amended claims continue to be directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions, managing and tracking funding claims and communicating their status. The additional elements, which will be specified more in the updated rejection below fail to provide any integration of an abstract idea into a practical application or “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
9. Regarding the application of the prior art to the claims, Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the prior art of record (i.e., the Artusy reference). This argument is persuasive, but the argument is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
10. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-30 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 being representative recites:
[…]
receiving information concerning a plurality of funding claims submitted to one or more charitable organizations;
processing the funding claims to determine a status for each of the plurality of funding claims; and
[…] defines the status of each of the plurality of each of the plurality of funding claims, […] a progress bar for each of the plurality of funding claims, the progress bar showing a current status of each of the plurality of funding claims and updating as each of the plurality of funding claims advances in status, an […] timeline visually mapping one or more of the plurality of funding claims through a plurality of processing stages, and a notification […] providing real-time updates on changes to statuses of each of the plurality of funding claims requirements for user action regarding one or more of the plurality of funding claims.
The amended claim limitations, including determining claim status, visually mapping claim progression through stages, displaying a progress bar, and providing notifications of status changes, collectively recite managing and tracking funding claims and communicating their status, are fundamental economic activities and commercial interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic activities and/or commercial interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 21 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that are recited are a computing device (claim 1) computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 11), computing system including a processor and memory (claim 21), and user interface including an interactive timeline and a notification panel (claims 1, 11, and 21). These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components without any technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to another technology. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Claims 1, 11, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recited above to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 11, and 21 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
The dependent claims 2-10, 12- 20, and 22-30 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 6, 16, and 26 recite the additional element of a graphical user interface. This additional element is again recited at a high-level of generality and it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-30 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Artusy et al. (US 2023/0317239 A1, hereinafter “Artusy”) in view of Cramer et al. (US2025/0378466, hereinafter “Cramer”).
Claim 1. Artusy teaches: A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
receiving information concerning a plurality of funding claims submitted to one or more charitable organizations (see, e.g., ¶ 40 teaching an estimated associated expenses report for a plurality of services is submitted to the system, which as taught in, e.g., ¶s 79-80, comprises charitable organizations);
processing the funding claims to determine a status for each of the plurality of funding claims (see, e.g., ¶s 65-67 teaching processing the funding claims and determining that the funds should be distributed); and
rendering a user interface that defines the status of each of the plurality of each of the plurality of funding claims (see, e.g., ¶s 26-27 teaching performing the invention using, e.g., smartphone apps as the interface for the front end of the invention),
Artusy does not specifically teach:
wherein the user interface incudes a progress bar for each of the plurality of funding claims, the progress bar showing a current status of each of the plurality of funding claims and updating as each of the plurality of funding claims advances in status, an interactive timeline visually mapping one or more of the plurality of funding claims through a plurality of processing stages, and a notification panel providing real-time updates on changes to statuses of each of the plurality of funding claims requirements for user action regarding one or more of the plurality of funding claims.
Nevertheless, such a feature is taught in analogous prior art. Cramer, for example, teaches:
wherein the user interface incudes a progress bar for each of the plurality of funding claims, the progress bar showing a current status of each of the plurality of funding claims and updating as each of the plurality of funding claims advances in status, an interactive timeline visually mapping one or more of the plurality of funding claims through a plurality of processing stages, and a notification panel providing real-time updates on changes to statuses of each of the plurality of funding claims requirements for user action regarding one or more of the plurality of funding claims (see, e.g., at least Figures 18-23, paragraphs [0043] In a further feature, the boxes in the graphical representation have a color or other indication denoting the status of a respective donor pledge. The status of the donation for example may be pledged, pending, engaged, or identified. Pledged may mean a donor has made a specific pledge of a donation amount and payment has been made or will be made in an agreed upon cadence or schedule. Pending may mean a donation request has been made but no payment or pledge has been received. Engaged may mean a donor has engaged with a campaign through messaging, meeting attendance, or other activity but no pledge or pending request has been made. Identified may mean a donor has been identified as of potential relevance to a campaign but no other engagement has occurred, [0050] In step 1110, a user is enabled to update donor information for a campaign. For example, page generator 122 may output one or more user-selectable campaign management pages 700-1000 which allow entry of updated donor information as described above. In step 1120, campaign data may be updated to propagate updated donor information throughout a campaign toolkit. For example, donor manager 126 may identify and receive updates to donor information (such as adding a new donor, updating status of donation such as a new pledge). Donor manager 126 may then update the campaign data 135 stored in database 130 to reflect the updated donor information, [0052]: Finally, in step 1130, campaign management pages are generated and displayed which have or reflect the updated donor information. Campaign toolkit manager 120 retrieves the updated data in campaign data 135 to allow updates in donor information to be viewed and managed in display pages for a campaign. For example, page generator 122 may generate one or more campaign management pages 700-1000 having the updated campaign data in real-time as updates are made to campaign data 135 stored in database 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the funding claim processing system of Artusy to include known graphical user interface techniques for visualizing status and progression of items within a multi-stage process, as taught by Cramer to improve the presentation of claim status, progression, and required user actions, thereby enhancing user comprehension and interaction with the system (see Cramer- abstract, Figures 8-12 and 15). Such graphical interface elements do not alter the underlying processing of funding claims but merely present the results of that processing. Further, the claimed graphical features merely apply known interface techniques for displaying status, progression, and updates to a known funding workflow system, yielding no more than predictable results, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claims 11 and 21, these claims recite the same method steps as Claim 1 but recite different statutory categories. The rejection of Claim 1 above relying on the combination of Artusy and Cramer to render the claims obvious is incorporated herein. Claim 11 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that, when executed by the processor, performs the same steps as Claim 1. Claim 21 recites a computer system including a processor and a memory configured to perform the operations of Claim 1. Because Artusy teaches a computer system (see at least Figure 4; see further Figures 1-3) with a processor (see Figure 4 feature 402) and memory that can execute the process (see Figure 4 features 403, 404, and 406), the combination of Artusy and Cramer render obvious Claims 11 and 21 with these additional teachings. Similarly coextensive dependent claims will be treated together below for the sake of brevity.
Claims 2, 12, and 22. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one or more charitable organizations includes one or more of: a charity; a non-profit organization; and a philanthropic entity of a for-profit entity (see, e.g., ¶s 79-80 teaching the donors “may include various types of donors, including, but not limited to: hospital endowment centers, foundations (of all types, e.g., independent, corporate, family), public charities, charitable trusts, non-profit organizations, and individual donors” as well as “mission driven charitable organizations” with a “specific focus area”).
Claims 3, 13, and 23. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one or more charitable organizations are defined within a charitable organization database (see, e.g., ¶ 80 teaching that the “donor side may also include mission driven charitable organizations” such as those “for a specific focus area (e.g., a type of medical condition)” and at least ¶ 85 teaching that all the donors are placed into a curated donor database).
Claims 4, 14, and 24. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the funding includes one or more of: drug-based funding; treatment-based funding; and disease-based funding (see, e.g., at least ¶ 69 teaching that the donors have agreed to fund particular treatments).
Claims 5, 15, and 25. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the status of each of the plurality of funding claims defines one or more of: a portion of the plurality of funding claims that have been submitted but not approved; a portion of the plurality of funding claims that have been approved but not yet paid; and a portion of the plurality of funding claims that have been paid (see, e.g., ¶ 66 teaching the provider system sending a final report summing the total bill that will be paid and ¶ 67 teaching a filing the financial report in a database into a completed cases warehouse).
Claims 6, 16, and 26. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the user interface includes a graphical user interface (see, e.g., ¶s 26-27 teaching performing the invention using, e.g., smartphone apps as the interface for the front end of the invention).
Claims 7, 17, and 27. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: enabling a user of the user interface to generate one or more reports (see, e.g., ¶ 40 teaching enabling the hospital or doctor to generate an associated expenses report for the services).
Claims 8, 18, and 28. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 7, 17, and 27. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein the one or more reports are based upon a defined period of time (see, e.g., ¶s 46 teaching providing reports based on some period of time such as six consecutive months).
Claims 9, 19, and 29. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: defining the total amount of funding claims paid to the user (see, e.g., ¶s 65-67 teaching processing the funding claims, including summing into a “total bill,” and determining that the funds should be distributed).
Claims 10, 20, 30. The combination of Artusy and Cramer teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: defining the total amount of funding claims owed to the user (see, e.g., ¶s 65-67 teaching processing the funding claims, including summing into a “total bill,” and determining that the funds should be distributed).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Nidy et al., US 8,209,194 B1;
Graybill, US 2018/0322543 A1;
Navar, US 2021/0326939 A1;
Jagemann et al., US 2013/0304486 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights