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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits. The claim set filed on 6/27/2025, as part of “Preliminary Amendment” has been fully considered. Going forward, please bifurcate the pdf document, so as to separate the claim set from the cover sheet.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application 63/298,520 filed 1/11/2022 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), and priority to U.S. patent application 18/095,470, filed 1/10/2023, under § 120, is acknowledged.
Objections
Drawings
The drawings are objected to at FIG. 1, for confusion. Please place labels in boxes to depict a separate object. For example, where 129 and 128 are stored in 120, place a box around them, to indicate that they are a separate item that is stored therein. Underline all interior labels, or provide explanation. Some are underlined like 146; and some are not like 147. Exterior labels (e.g., 115, etc.) do not need to be underlined.
FIG. 2 is confusing at 230-232/234, and 242/244. Are they alternative flows or a part of one step?
FIGS. 3A, and 3C appear to be photographs. As stated in 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), photographs will be accepted if they are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention. However, it appears that this is not the case in the instant application. Moreover, the scanned photographs are of poor image quality, such that the details (e.g., texts) are not readily discernible. Applicant is reminded that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.84(l). If the details/contents of the photograph are not germane to the disclosure than so state in response.
Is FIG. 4 line from 450 supposed to have a slash through it? Figures should stand alone, and not rely upon the specification for clarification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards pooling money to make donations, and contributing to a charitable fund. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., donors, philanthropists, etc.) manually and via generic computing. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation. Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—one or more processors, a memory, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new type of software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis at “the donor acknowledgment report”. Please change to “the donation . . .” Claim 4 is rejected for being indefinite: “the donor acknowledgment letter” lacks antecedent basis, and it is confusing at “report is”. Should the term “is” be deleted? Claim 11 is confusing at “to view an allocation profile one or more . . .” Claim 15 is not clear because it is unknown which user “the user” is referring to. Please check for consistency throughout. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0192873 to Marble, alone.
With respect to Claim 1, Marble teaches a network computer system (FIG. 1) comprising: one or more processors (FIG. 1); a memory to store a set of instructions (FIG. 1); wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations that include: for each user of a plurality of users ([0170-71]), recording one or more deposits for a donation funding account (“generic giving account”) that is shared amongst the plurality (“pool”) of users, the donation funding account including a total fund that is based on the recorded deposits for the plurality of users ([0049], account setup and management;[0076];[0096]); maintaining an allocation profile for each user of the plurality of users (Abstract), the allocation profile identifying one or more user-selected recipients ([0096]) and an allocation of a portion (FIG. 6, 610; FIG. 22) of the total fund that is attributable to the user for each of the one or more recipients ([0096];[0170-71]); and in response to a report event for a given user of the plurality of users, automatically generating a donation acknowledgment report that identifies a distribution of the portion of the fund that is attributable to the user for each of the one or more recipients (“a receipt”), the identified distribution being based on the allocation profile of the user (Abstract, Platform is configured to “track and report on consumer charitable donations”).
Marble does not disclose each and every limitation verbatim, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or “to try" -choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. For example, displaying and viewing the profile of a second co-donation, partnership, affiliated, or pooled user is obvious to try, when coordination between the two users is the stated goal. Especially, where the references teaches communication using text chat, voice, text messaging, etc. between users.
With respect to Claim 2, Marble teaches wherein for each user of the plurality of users, distributing the portion of the total funds to the one or more user-selected recipients in accordance with the identified distribution. ([0170-71], pool; FIG. 22; [0096]; discussing brand contribution and consumer contribution, etc.)
With respect to Claim 3, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: enabling the user to select one or more distribution parameters for the donor acknowledgement report ([0073];FIG. 6, 610 “notify”), and wherein automatically generating the donation acknowledgement report is based at least in part on the one or more distribution parameters ([0073];[0135]).
With respect to Claim 4, Marble teaches wherein upon generating the donor acknowledgement letter (“report”), enabling the user to select one or more distribution parameters for the donor acknowledgement report (FIG. 6, 610) is, and programmatically generating the donation acknowledgement report again (redundancy taught by original teaching) based on the selected one or more distribution parameters.
With respect to Claim 5, Marble teaches wherein for one or more users of the plurality of users, recording the deposit includes predicting an affiliate payment from an affiliate partner in connection with one or more activities performed by that user ([0088-89];[0131], affiliated).
With respect to Claim 6, Marble teaches wherein for one or more users of the plurality of users, recording the deposit includes receiving a payment from that user (Abstract, “payment”; [0170], generic giving account).
With respect to Claim 7, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: maintaining a data store of recipient records, each record identifying a corresponding recipient that is eligible to receive funds from the donation funding account. (FIG. 1, 106 “Causes”, 125 profiles)
With respect to Claim 8, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: enabling individual users of the plurality of users to identify a new recipient, and associating a new record of the data store of recipient records with the new recipient ([0048], any cause can be a new cause).
With respect to Claim 9, Marble teaches wherein maintaining the data store of recipient records includes, for at least some recipients identified by the data store of recipient records, associating a content item with a corresponding recipient ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 10, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: providing a user interface to enable each user of the plurality of users to select, for the allocation profile of that user, a recipient that is identified by a record of the data store of records (FIGS. 2, 3, 5, 6).
With respect to Claim 11, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: enabling one or more users of the plurality of users to view an allocation profile one or more recipients selected by other users of the plurality of users. [0066];[0170]
With respect to Claim 12, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: for a first user of the plurality of users, generating a first data structure ([0200]) that is selectable to link to an identifier of a first recipient, the first recipient being selected by the user ([0089];[0170]); and enabling the user to distribute the first data structure over one or more networks; wherein the first data structure is selectable by at least a second user of the plurality of users to add the first recipient to the allocation profile of the second user. (FIGS. 2,3, showing hyperlinks; see also affiliates/partnerships throughout)
With respect to Claim 13, Marble teaches wherein for a first user of the plurality of users, the operations further comprise: generating a first data structure (website, pull down menu) that links to a distribution list of recipients selected by the first user, the distribution list identifying multiple recipients ([0095];[0170]; FIG. 2, 3, 23B, 23C)
With respect to Claim 14, Marble teaches wherein the first data structure is selectable by at least a second user of the plurality of users to add the distribution list to the allocation profile of the second user. ([0095];[0170];[0173];[0230]; see affiliates/partnerships/pools throughout)
With respect to Claim 15, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: adding the distribution list to the allocation profile of the second user by replacing one or more recipients that were specified by the allocation profile of the user at a time when the distribution list is added. ([0005], see “updating” profile throughout; taught by updating affiliate/partnership/ pool profiles throughout)
With respect to Claim 16, Marble teaches wherein the distribution list identifies an allocation weight of each recipient of the distribution list. (FIG. 23C; [0064], percentage of co-donation teaches identifying an allocation weight of a recipient distribution list).
With respect to Claim 17, Marble teaches wherein adding the distribution list to the allocation profile of the second user includes recalculating an existing allocation weight of the allocation profile of the second user based at least in part on the allocation weight of the distribution list. ([0230];[0064], percentage of co-donation teaches identifying an allocation weight of a recipient distribution list; taught by updating affiliate/partnership/ pool profiles throughout).
With respect to Claim 18, Marble teaches wherein the first data structure is embeddable with promotional content of the first user. ([0146], embedded codes; [0230])
With respect to Claim 19, Marble teaches wherein the distribution list is branded by a brand element of the first user. (FIG. 2A, brand logo)
With respect to Claim 20, Marble teaches wherein the operations further comprise: for individual users of the plurality of users, determining a representation of the allocation profile of each user. ([0170], coordinating amongst the pool)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights