DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In the response dated March 19, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 13. Claims 2 and 8 were previously canceled. Claims 21-23 were added. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Prong One, Applicant asserts that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the claims recite physical components such as a computer system and memory, the claims cannot be solely done by a human because the claims do not merely encompass tissue donation and rewarding a donation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., processor, memory, user and campaign systems) does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Further, the claims encompass a user scheduling a tissue donation (i.e., campaign activity) with tissue donor (i.e., recruit) information and rewarding a monetary value to the user based on the completion of the campaign activity by the recruit, which is a method of managing interactions between people. Regarding Prong Two, Applicant asserts that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include controlling multiple external systems, specifically, and the claims require that the intermediary system authorize the transfer of monetary value without storing or transmitting financial, which improves the intermediary system by reducing computational and memory overhead… to secure highly sensitive financial data, and minimizing the network’s attack surface as the intermediary system is physically and programmatically restricted from possessing the data that malicious actors typically target. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a note, even though the alleged improvements were listed as part of Prong One of the remarks, improvements are first analyzed under Prong Two. In evaluating improvements, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides 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 claim does not improve technology (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification discloses, “the intermediary system 12 does not store or transmit financial data to the third-party payment system 34, but instead may direct a user to an interface for the third-party payment system 34 such that all financial information is provided from the user system 16 to the third-party payment system 34 without passing through the intermediary system.” However, there is no disclosure of how the intermediary system or “multisystem architecture” is a technological improvement including the reduction of computational and memory overhead and minimization of network’s attack surface as mentioned by Applicant remarks. Thus, the Applicant’s Specification does not set forth an improvement (explicitly or implicitly) to technology. As a whole, the additional elements recite using a processor, memory, and user and campaign systems to perform the abstract idea. The processor, memory, and systems in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements were evaluated under MPEP 2106.05(f), that is, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, which carried over from Step 2A, Prong Two. Thus, the claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
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, 3-7, and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 1 recite:
a processor; and
a memory comprising one or more non-transitory processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
request, from a campaign system different from the intermediary system, one or more campaign activity associated with a campaign, the one or more campaign activity having one or more campaign activity property, the one or more campaign activity property being one or more of: a campaign activity date, a campaign activity time, a campaign activity location, a campaign activity ID, and a campaign activity fund;
display, on a physical display of a user system of a user, a user interface to enable the one or more campaign activities associated with the campaign, the user interface having the one or more campaign activity property, and one or more input fields corresponding to recruit information, the recruit information corresponding to a particular recruit, each of the campaign activities being a tissue donation;
receive, from the user system, a user ID, the recruit information from the one or more input fields, and an activity indicator identifying a particular campaign activity of the one or more campaign activities;
transmit one or more communication to the campaign system to cause the campaign system to schedule the particular campaign activity with the recruit information;
receive, from the campaign system, a recruit identifier and a recruit status, the recruit identifier identifying the particular recruit and the recruit status indicative of whether the recruit completed the particular campaign activity;
after the campaign activity time and the campaign activity date of the particular campaign activity, query the campaign system to determine the recruit status;
allocate, to the user of the user system, a monetary value based upon the one or more campaign activity property of the particular campaign activity when the recruit status is indicative of the particular recruit successfully completing the particular campaign activity; and
communicate with a third-party payment system to authorize transfer of at least part of the monetary value from the campaign activity fund to the user;
wherein the intermediary system does not store financial data or transmit financial data to the third-party payment system
The identified limitations of independent claim 9 recite:
requesting from a campaign system different from an intermediary system, one or more campaign activity associated with a campaign, the one or more campaign activity, having one or more campaign activity property, the one or more campaign activity property being one or more of: a campaign activity date, a campaign activity time, a campaign activity location, a campaign activity ID, and a campaign activity fund;
receiving from a user system associated with a user, a user ID, and recruit information identifying a recruit different from the user;
causing the user system to display on a physical display a first interface having one or more available schedule slot;
transmitting one or more communication to the campaign system to cause the campaign system to schedule an activity date and an activity time for a tissue donation campaign activity to be completed by the recruit, the tissue donation campaign activity being one of the one or more campaign activities;
updating a recruit status to indicate the recruit successfully completing the tissue donation campaign activity after the campaign activity time and the campaign activity date;
allocating, to the user of the user system, a monetary value based upon the recruit status indicating the recruit successfully completing the tissue donation campaign activity; and
communicating with a third-party payment system to authorize transfer of at least part of the monetary value from the campaign activity fund to the user without storing financial data or transmitting financial data to the third party payment system.
The identified limitations of independent claim 13 recite:
a processor; and
a memory comprising one or more non-transitory processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
request, from a campaign system different from the intermediary system, one or more campaign activity associated with a campaign, the one or more campaign activity having one or more campaign activity property, the one or more campaign activity property being one or more of: a campaign activity date, a campaign activity time, a campaign activity location, a campaign activity ID, and a campaign activity fund;
provide, to a physical display of a user system of a user, a user interface to enable the one or more campaign activity associated with the campaign, each campaign activity associated with a tissue donation campaign and the user interface displaying one or more campaign activity property, and one or more input fields corresponding to recruit information, the recruit information corresponding to a particular recruit;
receive, from the user system, a user ID, the recruit information from the one or more input fields, and an activity indicator identifying a particular campaign activity of the one or more campaign activities;
transmit, to the campaign system, the recruit information and an activity date and an activity time corresponding to the particular campaign activity;
receive, from the campaign system, a recruit identifier and a recruit status, the recruit identifier identifying the particular recruit and the recruit status indicative of whether the recruit completed the particular campaign activity;
after the campaign activity time and the campaign activity date, query the campaign system to determine the recruit status;
allocate, to the user of the user system, a monetary value
communicate with a third-party payment system to authorize transfer of at least part of the monetary value from the campaign activity fund to the user without storing financial data or transmitting financial data to the third- party payment system
The identified limitations encompass a user scheduling a tissue donation (i.e., campaign activity) with tissue donor (i.e., recruit) information and rewarding a monetary value to the user based on the completion of the campaign activity by the recruit, which is a method of managing interactions between people. The claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., processor, display, memory, user and campaign systems) does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
As a whole, the additional elements recite using a processor, display, memory, and user and campaign systems to perform the abstract idea. The processor, memory, and systems in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-12, and 14-23, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated above in Prong Two, the processor, memory, and systems in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-12, and 14-23 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davis (US 2004/0068420 A1)
Kathoff et al.(US 2005/0102161 A1)
The aforementioned prior art references disclose using an interface to manage tissue donations. However, the references do not teach user information that is different than the recruit (donor) information as recited in the claims. In fact, identification number of the recruit is disclosed, but not for the user (e.g., non-profit organization or blood center). Also, Davis discloses rewarding a beneficiary of the tissue donor revenue based on tissue harvested whereas the claims recite rewarding the user (e.g., non-profit) donation or monetary value based on the recruit completing the campaign activity. Lastly, the references do not teach or suggest receiving and updating a recruit status indicative of whether the recruit completed the campaign activity.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685