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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/2022, 6/30/2022, 8/10/2023, 3/6/2024, 11/12/2024, 2/11/2025 and 5/19/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving claim attribute data from a plurality of users for a plurality of legal claims, wherein a respective legal claim corresponds to a compensation claim by a respective user, and wherein the claim attribute data for the respective legal claim comprises data corresponding to a legal claim type for the respective legal claim, a monetary value for the respective legal claim, or combinations thereof; receiving data for the plurality of legal claims from at least a subset of the plurality of users, wherein the data for the respective legal claim comprises data corresponding to one or more locations associated with the respective legal claim; and generating one or more legal claim blockchain based on the data, wherein the one or more legal claim blockchain are configured to store the data.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental process (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receiving”, “receiving” and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually receive and generate legal claims with using virtual hubs.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “a memory device” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 15 and 19 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-3, 8, 10-12 and 16-17 define how the claim using virtual hubs is received and processed which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 4-7, 9, 13-14, 18 and 20 (device, database) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0098071).
As to claims 1, 15 and 19, Jackson teaches a method, a system and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
receiving claim attribute data from a plurality of users for a plurality of legal claims, (para 38, 66 and fig. 1, the system receives and analyzes data from a plurality of users)
wherein a respective legal claim corresponds to a compensation claim by a respective user, (para 43-45, show that the user gets compensated based on a claim submitted by the user)
wherein the claim attribute data for the respective legal claim comprises data corresponding to a legal claim type for the respective legal claim, a monetary value for the respective legal claim, or combinations thereof; (para 65-68 and 75-78, estimating monetary value to purchase legal rights)
receiving device data for the plurality of legal claims from at least a subset of the plurality of users, wherein the device data for the respective legal claim comprises data corresponding to one or more locations associated with the respective legal claim; (para 50, 75, 78 and fig. 5, tracking in real-time related to data associated with a user)
generating one or more legal claim blockchain databases based on the device data, wherein the one or more legal claim blockchain databases are configured to store the device data. (para 46, 66,75 and 87, the database stores data in the form of a distributed ledger)
As to claims 2 and 16, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein the legal claim type for the respective legal claim comprises a Medicare secondary payer claim, an automobile injury claim, an opioid claim, a products liability claim, a personal injury claim, a patent infringement claim, a workman's compensation claim, a commercial litigation claim, a breach of contract claim, a breach of warranty claim, a libel claim, a slander claim, a nuisance claim, a debt collection claim, a malpractice claim, a property damage claim, a class action claim, a tort claim, a negligence claim, or combinations thereof. (para 38 and 45)
As to claim 4, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein: the respective user comprises an individual, a corporation, a business, an insurance company, an employer, or combinations thereof; the device data comprises data acquired using one or more mobile computing devices of at least the subset of the plurality of users; or combinations thereof. (para 44, 46, 65-66 and 75)
As to claims 5 and 20, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 19 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein the device data comprises accelerometer data, satellite navigation data, internet of things data, recorded video data, photographic data, audio data, cellular data, wide area network data, local area network data, financial temperature sensor data, magnetic field sensor data, neural sensor data, proximity sensor data, sound wave data, relative humidity sensor data, optical wave data, breathing pattern data, ultrasound data, pressure sensor data, photograph metadata, video metadata, internet protocol address data, weather device data, traffic device data, map device data, atmosphere device data, advertising data, advertising metadata, map routing data, supervisory control and data acquisition data, customer relationship management data, enterprise resource planning data, social network data, enterprise asset management data, water meter sensor data, eye movement data, biomarker data, chemical drug data, food data, unmanned aircraft sensor data, geographical information system data, wearable device data, or combinations thereof. (para 45)
As to claim 7, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein the device data comprises data acquired at a time proximate to a time associated with the legal claim, data acquired after the time associated with the legal claim, or combinations thereof. (para 47, 50 and 75-76)
As to claim 8, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein the data corresponding to the one or more locations associated with the respective legal claim comprises data acquired at a first location proximate to an injury location associated with the respective legal claim. (Claims 1 and 13)
As to claim 9, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
generating a legal claim exchange for a plurality of legal claim units based on the claim attribute data and the device data, wherein a respective legal claim unit corresponds to a contractual right to the respective legal claim available for purchase by the plurality of users. (para 43 and 83)
As to claim 13, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein generating the one or more legal claim blockchain databases comprises storing the device data as a legal claim blockchain, and wherein the device data of the legal claim blockchain is configured to be accessed by at least the subset of the plurality of users. (para 65, 75 and fig. 1)
As to claim 14, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
transmitting display data to a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to generate an interface based on the display data, and wherein the computing device is configured to receive fixed input data, visual input data, audio input data, or combinations thereof via the interface. (para 70-72)
As to claim 18, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Jackson further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors to generate the one or more legal claim blockchain databases further comprises program instructions executable by the one or more processors to store the device data as a legal claim blockchain, wherein the device data of the legal claim blockchain is configured to be accessed by at least the subset of the plurality of users. (para 65, 75 and fig. 1)
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0098071) in view of Young (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0307276).
As to claims 3 and 17, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as discussed above.
Jackson does not teach:
wherein the monetary value for the respective legal claim corresponds to a monetary amount previously paid by the respective user for the respective legal claim.
However, Young teaches:
wherein the monetary value for the respective legal claim corresponds to a monetary amount previously paid by the respective user for the respective legal claim. (para 11 and 14)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to provide the monetary value to the respective claim in Jackson as taught by Young. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Young that doing so would provide a specialized indemnification obligation that can allow attorney the ability to recoup all or a portion of their cost or expenses that may arise out of loans to support litigation costs and expenses.
As to claim 10, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Jackson does not teach:
wherein the contractual right to the respective legal claim available for purchase by the plurality of users comprises a right to receive compensation for a monetary amount previously paid by the respective user for the respective legal claim.
However, Young teaches:
wherein the contractual right to the respective legal claim available for purchase by the plurality of users comprises a right to receive compensation for a monetary amount previously paid by the respective user for the respective legal claim. (para 11 and 14)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to provide the monetary value to the respective claim in Jackson as taught by Young. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Young that doing so would provide a specialized indemnification obligation that can allow attorney the ability to recoup all or a portion of their cost or expenses that may arise out of loans to support litigation costs and expenses.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0098071) in view of TD professional service referred herein as TD (WO 2019/183468 A1).
As to claim 6, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jackson does not teach:
receiving additional data for the plurality of legal claims from at least the subset of the plurality of users, wherein the additional data for the respective legal claim comprises claim expected value data, non-vehicle accident data, transaction data, implant data, international patent class data, subpoena data, or combinations thereof; storing the additional data in the one or more legal claim blockchain databases, wherein the additional data is associated with the device data in the one or more legal claim blockchain databases.
However, TD teaches:
receiving additional data for the plurality of legal claims from at least the subset of the plurality of users, wherein the additional data for the respective legal claim comprises claim expected value data, non-vehicle accident data, transaction data, implant data, international patent class data, subpoena data, or combinations thereof; storing the additional data in the one or more legal claim blockchain databases, wherein the additional data is associated with the device data in the one or more legal claim blockchain databases. (para 14-18)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to receive additional data for the claims in Jackson as taught by TD. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught TD that doing so would provide an immutable audit ledger that meets legal standards of data security and a computer architecture that permits data regulation auditors to access an immutable ledger of the data, thereby confirming compliance with the data regulations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0098071) in view of Bowlby et al. referred herein as Bow (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0140557)
As to claim 11, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Jackson does not teach:
receiving transaction input data from the plurality of users, wherein the transaction input data comprises data corresponding to one or more bid prices and one or more offer prices for the plurality of legal claim units, acceptance of a respective bid price or a respective offer price, or combinations thereof.
However, Bow teaches:
receiving transaction input data from the plurality of users, wherein the transaction input data comprises data corresponding to one or more bid prices and one or more offer prices for the plurality of legal claim units, acceptance of a respective bid price or a respective offer price, or combinations thereof. (para 11-24)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to receive transaction input data from the plurality of users in Jackson as taught by Bow. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Bow that doing so would provide liquidity and price discovery in the intellectual property market.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0098071) in view of Floyd et al. referred herein as Floyd (U.S. Patent No. 10,832,337)
As to claim 12, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Jackson does not teach:
generating a priority queue of the plurality of legal claim units using the legal claim exchange, wherein the priority queue orders the plurality of legal claim units.
However, Floyd teaches:
generating a priority queue of the plurality of legal claim units using the legal claim exchange, wherein the priority queue orders the plurality of legal claim units. (col 7-8 lines 1-9 and col 10 lines 3-9)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to generate a priority queue of the plurality of legal claim unit in Jackson as taught by Floyd. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Floyd that doing so would prioritize a plurality of multiple liability inducing events so that highest priority clams can be handled first.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights