DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/16/26 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 9 and 17 recite a method and a machine-readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a communication component that receives donor information over a period of time from a plurality of authorized source devices, the donor information being associated with a donor and a target organization;
a recording component that records the donor information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the donor information is received over the period of time, wherein the blockchain comprises execution instructions that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information, and wherein donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor is associated with a blockchain address assigned to the donor and linked to a unique identifier of the donor; and
an evaluation component that determines, from the donor information, a social media score, an independent engagement score, and an influence score, generates a first vector from the social media score, a second vector from the independent engagement score, and a third vector from the influence score, assigns weights to the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector based on social media factors relevant to the target organization, combines and fits the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector to a best-fit curve to determine an overall influence score of the donor, tracks an impact of a social media posting of the donor on the target organization using a heat equation, and repeats receiving donor information, determining the social media score, the independent engagement score, and the influence score, determining the overall influence score, and tracking the impact over the period of time to build donor information for the donor with respect to the target organization
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Additionally, the Specification indicates that the claims are directed to “tracking donor information” in order to “determine a potential impact of a donor.” Specification ¶1. This is an abstract idea in the form of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mathematical concepts
an evaluation component that determines, from the donor information, a social media score, an independent engagement score, and an influence score, generates a first vector from the social media score, a second vector from the independent engagement score, and a third vector from the influence score, assigns weights to the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector based on social media factors relevant to the target organization, combines and fits the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector to a best-fit curve to determine an overall influence score of the donor, tracks an impact of a social media posting of the donor on the target organization using a heat equation, and repeats receiving donor information, determining the social media score, the independent engagement score, and the influence score, determining the overall influence score.
These limitations constitute calculating scores, vectors, a best-fit curve, and a heat equation, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered mathematical concepts, in the form of a mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols. See MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a communication component, authorized source devices, a recording component, a blockchain stored on a blockchain network, an evaluation component, a smart contract executed on the blockchain (claim 1), a system comprising a processor, a blockchain stored on a blockchain network, authorized source devices (claim 9), a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, and a blockchain stored on a blockchain network, authorized source devices (claim 17). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation reciting
a recording component that records the donor information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the donor information is received over the period of time, wherein the blockchain comprises execution instructions that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information, and wherein donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor is associated with a blockchain address assigned to the donor; (claim 1) and controlling recording of the donor information using execution instructions of the blockchain that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information; and associating donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor with a blockchain address assigned to the donor (claims 9 and 17) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (a recording component that records the donor information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the donor information is received over the period of time, wherein the blockchain comprises execution instructions that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information, and wherein donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor is associated with a blockchain address assigned to the donor; (claim 1) and controlling recording of the donor information using execution instructions of the blockchain that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information; and associating donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor with a blockchain address assigned to the donor (claims 9 and 17)). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): 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 a computer to perform the claimed steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 18-20 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1,10, and 17; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 substantially repeat limitations already present in claims 1 or 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-20.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Khan (US 20230128945). Khan discloses a system for recording activities performed online, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]).
Woodward et al. (US 20150310507) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Woodward is a similar system for gathering data regarding a fund-raising activity of one or more participants (abstract).
Frederick et al. (US 20190166133) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Frederick discloses a similar system for data authentication and event execution using a blockchain (abstract).
Referring to claim 1: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a system comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a communication component that receives donor information over a period of time from a plurality of authorized source devices, the donor information being associated with a donor and a target organization;
a recording component that records the donor information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the donor information is received over the period of time, wherein the blockchain comprises execution instructions that identify devices authorized to provide donor information for recording on the blockchain, define devices permitted to write to the blockchain, and define information recorded on the blockchain and hashing and verification protocols used to record the information, and wherein donor information received from different authorized source devices for the donor is associated with a blockchain address assigned to the donor and linked to a unique identifier of the donor; and
an evaluation component that determines, from the donor information, a social media score, an independent engagement score, and an influence score, generates a first vector from the social media score, a second vector from the independent engagement score, and a third vector from the influence score, assigns weights to the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector based on social media factors relevant to the target organization, combines and fits the first vector, the second vector, and the third vector to a best-fit curve to determine an overall influence score of the donor, tracks an impact of a social media posting of the donor on the target organization using a heat equation, and repeats receiving donor information, determining the social media score, the independent engagement score, and the influence score, determining the overall influence score, and tracking the impact over the period of time to build donor information for the donor with respect to the target organization
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art. Claims 9 and 17 are similar to claim 1 and not found in the prior art for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
II. Rejection under 112(a)
The rejections were withdrawn, in light of the amendments.
III. Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the amended claims are “directed to a particular technological implementation: a constrained, execution-controlled blockchain network with donor-specific addresses and unified immutable records, combined with a specified analytic pipeline operating on that ledger data over time.” Remarks 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010). Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine. When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant: the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, and whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As to the first factor, in this case, a generic computer (the memory and processor) is used to execute the instructions claimed. Therefore, the elements are considered more general. As to whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly"). In this case, the machine functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by use of a particular machine.
Applicant then argues that the exception is implemented “in a concreate way that changes how donor information is ingested, recorded, associated, and evaluated in a distributed ledger system.” Remarks 17. Examiner believes Applicant is arguing that the claims provide an improvement to technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying blockchain tools to donor information does not provide an improvement to technology. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. See MPEP 2106.05 (a). Here, the Specification has set forth the alleged improvement only in a conclusory manner and has not provided sufficient technical details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Applicant further argues that the rejection “fails to establish that the claimed ordered combination amounts to nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity” and references Berkheimer. Nowhere does the Office Action indicated that the claimed ordered combination amounts to nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Rather, the Office Action establishes that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole, and further, that the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant then references Electric Power Group and indicates that “treating these limitations as nothing more than ‘generic data gathering and analysis’ would disregard the specific architecture and ordered operations.” Remarks 20. Examiner has not treated the claims as nothing more than generic data gathering and analysis.
IV. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103
The rejection is withdrawn, in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Glissman et al. (US 20120253858), a system for representing an underlying business and tools to support dynamic adjustment of the structure and which includes a social media metric (abstract). Glissman discloses heat maps (Glissman [0028]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. Te 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
