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 . This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/136,145 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ONLINE MARKETPLACE OF CLAIMS AND ADVANCE FUNDING" filed on November 14, 2025, with claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 14, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 18, 2023 and November 18, 2024, are 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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A …system for facilitating litigation funding advances, the system comprising: …
comprising: receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
and verifying the claim information to determine whether to approve or to reject the contentious claim,
wherein if the claim is rejected, the operations further comprise:
requesting additional or alternative information from a user associated with the contentious claim, and
wherein if the contentious claim is approved, the operations further comprise:
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders via the electronic portal, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first claim corresponding to the claim information;
and initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a … associated with the contentious claim among a series of … each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on …caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the … associated with the contentious claim among the series of … each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional claims, and wherein the amount of impact …includes one or more of:
the amount of storage space the contentious claim takes…;
the amount of user inputs that each claim … associated with a claim received; and
the amount of network traffic each … associated with a claim received.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to transfer the funding advance and initiating a … transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations] [an online platform] [on the online platform] [in a database of the online platform]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[button]:
merely applying graphical user interface technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface elements”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
“computer-implemented”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
“computer-implemented”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 8 recites:
“A … method for facilitating litigation funding advances, the method comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders via the electronic portal, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first claim corresponding to the claim information;
initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim
recording the first secure transaction using …technology,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a … associated with the contentious claim among a series of … each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on …caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the … associated with the contentious claim among the series of … each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional claims, and wherein the amount of impact …includes one or more of:
the amount of storage space the contentious claim takes…;
the amount of user inputs that each claim … associated with a claim received; and
the amount of network traffic each … associated with a claim received”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to transfer the funding advance and initiating a … transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [an online platform] [on the online platform] [in a database of the online platform]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[button]:
merely applying graphical user interface technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[blockchain]:
merely applying distributed ledger storage technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 8 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 9:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface elements”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 11:
“computer-implemented”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 12:
“computer-implemented”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 13:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 14:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 15 recites:
“A … for facilitating litigation funding advances, the operations comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
determining, using a …model, a rating associated with the contentious claim, wherein the … model is trained using historical claim data including at least one of: an amount of damages sought, an amount of insurance coverage, an amount settled or awarded, details of a police report, or medical details:
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders via the electronic portal, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders and the determined rating;
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first claim corresponding to the claim information; and
initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a … associated with the contentious claim among a series of … each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on …caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the … associated with the contentious claim among the series of … each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional claims, and wherein the amount of impact …includes one or more of:
the amount of storage space the contentious claim takes…;
the amount of user inputs that each claim graphical element associated with a claim received; and
the amount of network traffic each … associated with a claim received”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to transfer the funding advance and initiating a … transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations] [an online platform] [on the online platform] [in a database of the online platform]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[button]:
merely applying graphical user interface technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[machine learning]:
merely applying machine learning technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 15 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 16:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”, “user interface elements”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 18:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 19:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 20:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[111] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .Net Framework, .Net Compact Framework (and related languages, such as Visual Basic, C, etc.), Java, C++, Objective-C, Swift, HTML, Javascript, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS.”.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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:
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 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (“REPAYMENT THROUGH NON RECOURSE CONTRACTS RELATED TO LITIGATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20160232631 A1), in view of Fogg (“DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION OF SEARCH RESULTS ON A USER INTERFACE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20050171940 A1),in view of Tuggle (“HIERARCHICAL WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20140278705 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Young teaches,
A computer-implemented system for facilitating litigation funding advances, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
(Young [Abstract] to cover litigation related loans...the invention is a computer method
Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [Claim 2] A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions
Young [Claim 1] specific processor or executable computer code)
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
(Young [0004] legal claims take years to work their way through the judicial system.
Young [0006] assessing the reimbursement claim, based on automatic document comparisons
Young [0007] status received by a database litigation file
Young [0002] query and retrieval of information both on the web and on internal servers)
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders via the electronic portal,
(Young [0004] legal claims
Young [0056] interface 352 for allowing the potential insurer or lender to adjust a premium or price respectively
Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;
Young [0003] Certain lenders offer non recourse loans to litigants)
wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
(Young [0004] legal claims
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event, and the CDS seller owes the buyer the protection sought, such payment would not be due until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st following the presentation of the contract for settlement. ...the buyer is required to present the instrument for settlement within a set period, say 30 days, of the credit event.
Young [0003] Certain lenders offer non recourse loans to litigants)
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first claim corresponding to the claim information; and initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim.
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0035] can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer)
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
(Young [0004] legal claims
Young [0056] interface 352 for allowing the potential insurer or lender to adjust a premium or price respectively
Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;
Young [0003] Certain lenders offer non recourse loans to litigants)
displaying a (graphical element) associated with the contentious claim among a series of (graphical elements) each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
(Young [0034] having conditioning software to parse, filter and generally extract pay out data received from system 110 n; and a rules engine 180 customized to a particular type of lawsuit
Young [0015] documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms …displaying the search results to the user;
Young [0060] a GUI screen 501 of display... wherein a non limiting example of images generated, such as a sub-windows
Young [0062] screen 502 of display 103 ...the information related to the contract coverage, such as the name of an lender
Young [0056] a first computer interface ...associated with litigant contracts database...to post an indemnification contract terms and conditions, related to a contingency payment in the event of a claim event)
determining amounts of impact on an online platform caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims
(Young [0025] The valuation metrics is the method by which the payout amount due from the protection seller to the protection buyer is calculated.
Young [0015] actuarial analysis based on one or more of: the identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, the range of economic damages
Young [0043] based on a formula which considers the following factors:...notional value
Young [0006] adjusting the claims;
Young [0062] display... the information related to the contract coverage, such as the name of an lender 543, contact name 545, phone number 547, the premium 549, coverage 551 and the deductible 553.
Young [Claim 1] the non recourse contract amount)
contentious claim; a claim; of additional claims
(Young [0004] legal claims take years to work their way through the judicial system.
Young [0006] assessing the reimbursement claim, based on automatic document comparisons)
Young does not teach button; verifying the … information to determine whether to approve or to reject the contentious claim, wherein if the … is rejected, the operations further comprise: requesting additional or alternative information from a user associated with the contentious …, and wherein if the contentious claim is approved, the operations further comprise: automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious claim among the series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of the series…, and wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of: the amount of storage space the… takes in a database of the online platform; the amount of user inputs that each claim button associated with… received; and the amount of network traffic each graphical element associated with a … received.
Fogg teaches,
automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the (graphical element) associated with the contentious claim among the series of graphical elements each associated with a corresponding one of the series …, and wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of: the amount of storage space the… takes in a database of the online platform; the amount of user inputs that each claim (graphical element) associated with… received; and the amount of network traffic each (graphical element) associated with a … received.
(Fogg [0017] The dynamic visualization of search results in a user interface is described. ...search results are dynamically positioned on a user interface based on the significance or relevance of the search result to a set of search criteria. The following describes the set of search criteria as attributes ... icons on the user interface automatically re-position themselves based on modification of the search criteria...an electronic mail message (e.g., based on file size, age of file, file type (text, audio, video, etc.), date, etc.), among other examples.
Fogg [0024] icons automatically move in and out of the item display region
Fogg [0029] server device may store the...information in a ... database
Fogg [0041] network traffic
Examiner contends "based on file size" reads on "amount of storage space ... takes in a database of the online platform" and "amount of network traffic each...element associated ... received". )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the dynamic visualization of search results on a user interface of Fogg for “dynamic visualization of search results on a user interface” (Fogg [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. the dynamic visualization of search results on a user interface) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “enables a user to dynamically visualize the likelihood of specific information being of interest to the party” Fogg [Abstract])
Fogg does not teach button; verifying the claim information to determine whether to approve or to reject the contentious …, wherein if the claim is rejected, the operations further comprise: requesting additional or alternative information from a user associated with the contentious …, and wherein if the contentious … is approved, the operations further comprise:
Tuggle teaches,
button
(Tuggle [0070] Data can be saved by clicking a button
Tuggle [0071] aspects can be individually accepted, declined, or deleted by clicking the applicable button)
verifying the claim information to determine whether to approve or to reject the contentious …, wherein if the claim is rejected, the operations further comprise: requesting additional or alternative information from a user associated with the contentious …, and wherein if the contentious … is approved, the operations further comprise:
(Tuggle [Claim 11] a verification engine
Tuggle [0056] the flow of information, legal and insurance documents, project costing and milestone funding from the property owner to contractors, sub trades and suppliers is streamlined and automated
Tuggle [0087] generate one or more alerts informing the user that information is missing, unintelligible, or otherwise improper (e.g., expired or soon to be expired license or other information), …Alerts/reports could also be generated based … for example, denial or approval of a request, a request for additional information, a change in status of a request, and so forth..)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the information request of Tuggle for “denial or approval of a request, a request for additional information” (Tuggle [0087]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. information request) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “informing the user that information is missing, unintelligible, or otherwise improper” Tuggle [0087])
Regarding Claim 2,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders
(Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;)
comprises: displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims; and
(Young [0015] guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries to supply information...processing the query to extract one or more of: an identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, a range of economic damages, name of insurance carriers, type of coverage;
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims)
providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims, wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
(Young [0015] receiving from a user, through an input device... guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries
Young [0034] conditioning software to parse, filter and generally extract pay out data received from system
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data into the invention system)
Regarding Claim 6,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim; and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
(Young [0059] If final judgement is rendered, then the apparatus 400 via processor 312, executes the function whether the litigant is entitled to recovery 309, determining the amount of recovery 311, and generating letters 313 and generating autopay 315 regarding automatically paying an amount of money dependent on the CDS contract.
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event,... until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st
Young [0035] The exemplary browser based system 100 can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer in the world equipped with a browser)
Regarding Claim 7,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim; and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
(Young [0003] In the event that there fails to be an award of money damages sufficient to repay the loan, the lender is in most instances is unable to collect the outstanding loaned amount, because the loans are non recourse.
Young [0055] If the litigant/indemnitee is not entitled to recovery, the system 300 automatically generates a letter 313, and either mails it through the post, sends it private delivery service, or sends out an email to the litigant/indemnitee.)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Fogg, and Tuggle in view of Burchetta (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVANCED FUNDING FOR PROCEEDS FROM A RESOLVED DISPUTE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060080186 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders
(Young [0034] receive from the remote site system ... data stored in database ... to read customer accounts either received from the web server 130 or residing in a database ...having a browser appearing on display
Young [0006] assessing the reimbursement claim, based on automatic document comparisons and ... critical events; adjusting the claims;)
Young does not teach comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
Burchetta teaches,
comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
(Burchetta [0070] may be password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access. ...a user authorization code providing access control to the system. For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication, for example through the use of voice pattern, fingerprints, physical signature, or “smart” card.
Burchetta [0070] may be password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the security measures of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security measures) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access” Burchetta [0070])
Regarding Claim 5,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0035] can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer)
comprises: receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
(Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [0007] a second computer interface for allowing the first participant to post the requested premium
Young [Abstract] transferring to the second market participant a sum of money)
Young does not teach reviewing and approving the incoming payment request; generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Burchetta teaches,
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and
(Burchetta [Abstract] An authorization for at least one entity to accept a payment of proceeds...in exchange for having funds provided to the first party is received and funds are transferred from the entity to the first party.
Burchetta [0005] with advance funding capability)
reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the security measures of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security measures) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access” Burchetta [0070])
Claims 8, 9, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Fogg, and Tuggle in view of Tedesco (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC ASSET TRANSFER USING SMART CONTRACTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220284419 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 but with the additional limitation of: recording the first secure transaction using blockchain technology.
Tedesco teaches,
recording the first secure transaction using blockchain technology.
(Tedesco [0033] historical investment data and up-to-date investment analyses (e.g., ... lending, litigation finance, etc.)
Tedesco [Abstract] a smart contract is constructed between a consumer and a service provider. The smart contract is stored on a blockchain)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the blockchain of Tedesco where “The smart contract is stored on a blockchain.” (Tedesco [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. blockchain ) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “These rules written in code are known as “smart contracts,” which are programs running on a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met.” Tedesco [0006])
Regarding Claim 9,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders
(Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;)
comprises: displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims; and
(Young [0015] guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries to supply information...processing the query to extract one or more of: an identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, a range of economic damages, name of insurance carriers, type of coverage;
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims)
providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims, wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
(Young [0015] receiving from a user, through an input device... guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries
Young [0034] conditioning software to parse, filter and generally extract pay out data received from system
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data into the invention system)
Regarding Claim 13,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim; and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
(Young [0059] If final judgement is rendered, then the apparatus 400 via processor 312, executes the function whether the litigant is entitled to recovery 309, determining the amount of recovery 311, and generating letters 313 and generating autopay 315 regarding automatically paying an amount of money dependent on the CDS contract.
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event,... until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st
Young [0035] The exemplary browser based system 100 can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer in the world equipped with a browser)
Regarding Claim 14,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim; and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
(Young [0003] In the event that there fails to be an award of money damages sufficient to repay the loan, the lender is in most instances is unable to collect the outstanding loaned amount, because the loans are non recourse.
Young [0055] If the litigant/indemnitee is not entitled to recovery, the system 300 automatically generates a letter 313, and either mails it through the post, sends it private delivery service, or sends out an email to the litigant/indemnitee.)
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 but with the additional limitation of: determining, using a machine learning model, a rating associated with the contentious claim, wherein the machine learning model is trained using historical claim data including at least one of: an amount of damages sought, an amount of insurance coverage, an amount settled or awarded, details of a police report, or medical details; and the determined rating;
Young teaches,
determining, using a machine learning model, a rating associated with the contentious claim, wherein the machine learning model …. using historical claim data including at least one of: an amount of damages sought, an amount of insurance coverage, an amount settled or awarded, details of a police report, or medical details; and the determined rating;
(Young [0051] The files in database 150 are compared in comparator 303, using machine learning or regular expression algorithms, to files resident in the case management database 170
Young [0043] the total number of CDS contracts and notional value of same during a prior set period ...the historical credit event occurrence rate which all instruments had experienced over time
Young [0026] based on ... the historical credit event occurrence rate)
an amount of damages sought,
(Young [Claim 1] processing the query to extract one or more of: an identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, a range of economic damages)
an amount of insurance coverage,
(Young [0062] the information related to the contract coverage, such as the name of an lender 543, contact name 545, phone number 547, the premium 549, coverage 551 and the deductible)
an amount settled or awarded,
(Young [0044] and notional value of such contracts, a payment fund shall be maintained out of which all contracts in which credit events occurred and were presented for settlement would be settled
Young [0049] Such parameters include litigants, type of case, date of service, litigation scheduling, motions, and dispositions including judgments and damage awards if any)
details of a police report, or medical details:
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans for medical expenses)
Young does not teach is trained.
Tedesco teaches,
is trained.
(Tedesco [0040] one or more ML models are trained)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine learning of Young to incorporate the machine learning training of Tedesco where “one or more ML models are trained.” (Tedesco [0040]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. machine learning training ) to a known concept (i.e. machine learning) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “During the training mode, the pattern recognizer may use the identified investment profile features to train one or more ML models.” Tedesco [0040])
Regarding Claim 16,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders
(Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;)
comprises: displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims; and
(Young [0015] guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries to supply information...processing the query to extract one or more of: an identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, a range of economic damages, name of insurance carriers, type of coverage;
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims)
providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims, wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
(Young [0015] receiving from a user, through an input device... guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries
Young [0034] conditioning software to parse, filter and generally extract pay out data received from system
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data into the invention system)
Regarding Claim 19,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim; and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
(Young [0059] If final judgement is rendered, then the apparatus 400 via processor 312, executes the function whether the litigant is entitled to recovery 309, determining the amount of recovery 311, and generating letters 313 and generating autopay 315 regarding automatically paying an amount of money dependent on the CDS contract.
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event,... until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st
Young [0035] The exemplary browser based system 100 can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer in the world equipped with a browser)
Regarding Claim 20,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim; and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
(Young [0003] In the event that there fails to be an award of money damages sufficient to repay the loan, the lender is in most instances is unable to collect the outstanding loaned amount, because the loans are non recourse.
Young [0055] If the litigant/indemnitee is not entitled to recovery, the system 300 automatically generates a letter 313, and either mails it through the post, sends it private delivery service, or sends out an email to the litigant/indemnitee.)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco in view of Burchetta (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVANCED FUNDING FOR PROCEEDS FROM A RESOLVED DISPUTE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060080186 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders
(Young [0034] receive from the remote site system ... data stored in database ... to read customer accounts either received from the web server 130 or residing in a database ...having a browser appearing on display
Young [0006] assessing the reimbursement claim, based on automatic document comparisons and ... critical events; adjusting the claims;)
Young does not teach comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
Burchetta teaches,
comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
(Burchetta [0070] may be password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access. ...a user authorization code providing access control to the system. For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication, for example through the use of voice pattern, fingerprints, physical signature, or “smart” card.
Burchetta [0070] may be password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the security measures of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security measures) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access” Burchetta [0070])
Regarding Claim 12,
Young, Fogg, and Tuggle teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0035] can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer)
comprises: receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
(Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [0007] a second computer interface for allowing the first participant to post the requested premium
Young [Abstract] transferring to the second market participant a sum of money)
Young does not teach reviewing and approving the incoming payment request; generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Burchetta teaches,
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and
(Burchetta [Abstract] An authorization for at least one entity to accept a payment of proceeds...in exchange for having funds provided to the first party is received and funds are transferred from the entity to the first party.
Burchetta [0005] with advance funding capability)
reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the security measures of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security measures) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access” Burchetta [0070])
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco in view of Burchetta.
Regarding Claim 18,
Young, Fogg, Tuggle, and Tedesco teach the litigation funding advance of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0035] can function from any 128 bit (or higher) encryption enabled Internet enabled computer)
comprises: receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
(Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [0007] a second computer interface for allowing the first participant to post the requested premium
Young [Abstract] transferring to the second market participant a sum of money)
Young does not teach reviewing and approving the incoming payment request; generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Burchetta teaches,
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant; and
(Burchetta [Abstract] An authorization for at least one entity to accept a payment of proceeds...in exchange for having funds provided to the first party is received and funds are transferred from the entity to the first party.
Burchetta [0005] with advance funding capability)
reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation funding advance of Young to incorporate the security measures of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security measures) to a known concept (i.e. litigation funding advance) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access” Burchetta [0070])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on November 14, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“A. The Claims Do Not Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A, Prong One …the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One, and are therefore patent-eligible.."
Examiner responds:
Examiner maintains the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing “for facilitating litigation funding advances...surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders...wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders...transfer the funding advance for a first claim... initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders ...determining amounts of impact” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that …."limitations ... [that] cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity"-do not recite an abstract idea at least because they do not fall within any of the enumerated sub-groupings of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping."
Examiner responds:
Examiner maintains these limitations as a whole describe litigation financing that
expresses a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If an invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the invention describes an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“These claim recitations clearly draw parallels to the patent-eligible subject matter exemplified in Example 37."
Examiner responds:
Examiner disagrees that the applicant’s proposed invention parallels that of Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In the example, a crux of the invention functionally rearranges and moves icons on a graphical user interface. The applicant’s invention merely manipulates data relating to litigation financing and adjusts the buttons on a user interface. Moreover, the button movement is merely a post-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
Furthermore, in Example 37, the claims were rejected under “Mental Process” and "Organizing Human Activity”. It overcame the “Mental Process” classification because the claimed step of determining the amount of use of each icon by tracking how much memory had been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time in a manner not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage. It overcame the “Organizing Human Activity” classification because the claims never stated any fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people.
However, in this Instant Application, the Examiner never rejected the claims under “Mental Process” but the claims are replete with reciting fundamental economic principles and practice and/or commercial or legal interactions relating to litigation financing.
As such, the Instant Application in no way resembles Example 37.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that "sorting data (or icons) for display" does not fall in alleged fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping and as such should not be grouped with any other alleged abstract ideas."
Examiner responds:
Examiner asserts that “sorting data” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that at least "recording the first secure transaction using blockchain technology" recited in amended claim 8 does not recite an abstract idea and should be considered as an additional element… Applicant respectfully submits that at least "determining, using a machine learning model, …should be considered as an additional element.
Examiner responds:
Examiner agrees that “blockchain” and “machine learning” are considered additional elements. (Examiner also considered the “button” as a graphical user interface which may be deemed an additional element.)
The claims’ invocation of “blockchain”, “machine learning”, “button”, and graphical user interface does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional “blockchain”, “machine learning”, “button”, and graphical user interface components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic “blockchain”, “machine learning”, “button”, and graphical user interface components.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional “blockchain”, “machine learning”, “button”, and graphical user interface technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Applicant states:
“For example, traditional software does not automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the "start" or "home" icon, where they can be easily accessed. "
Examiner responds:
Stack Exchange (“Automatically have my frequently-used apps handy”, 2013) teaches, “The right apps at the right time: whether you're at home, work or in your car, Cover learns which apps you use and puts them at your fingertips”…” dynamically changes to the apps you use mot (sic) often”… “Microsoft's Arrow Launcher automatically arranges your apps based on your usage”
Automatically arranging icons by usage frequency is well-understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Applicant states:
“the Office alleges multiple times that "sorting data (and icons) is well-understood, routine, and conventional." … Applicant respectfully reminds the Office that, per the Berkheimer memo … requires at least one ….(b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions."
Examiner responds:
The assertion that “sorting data” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea is supported by court decisions: [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Tuggle (“HIERARCHICAL WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20140278705 A1).
Tedesco (“Systems and methods for automatic asset transfer using smart contracts”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220284419 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stack Exchange (“Automatically have my frequently-used apps handy”, 2013) teaches, “The right apps at the right time: whether you're at home, work or in your car, Cover learns which apps you use and puts them at your fingertips”…” dynamically changes to the apps you use mot (sic) often”… “Microsoft's Arrow Launcher automatically arranges your apps based on your usage”
Brennan (“METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FACILITATING FUNDING OF TRADE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20030236735 A1) proposes providing non recourse funding of trade in goods during transit. In the method of the invention risks are allocated to decrease the cost of trade finance. A Funding Bank provides non recourse funding based upon various financial commitments received from a Performance Insurer and a Collateral Control Bank. The present invention also relates to a computer system for facilitating trade in goods comprised of a communications network coupled to a logistic data server and a trade management system. The communications network transmits and receives data from parties involved in the funding of trade in goods. The logistic data server calculates a target shipping trajectory and calculates the transactions overall credit worthiness. The trade management system monitors the actual shipping trajectory and determines whether to initiate corrective action when the actual shipping trajectory differs from the target shipping trajectory.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights