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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 05/06/2026 is entered. Clams 1-20 are canceled and a new claim 21 is added, wherein several new imitations are added to the limitations of earlier examined clam 1, now canceled.
2. The limitations of the currently filed new claim 21 have been already discussed in a telephone interview with the Applicant’s representatives Mr. Samuel Pierce and Mr. Thomas Hecht on 11/17/2025 wherein Examiner I, regarding 35 USC 101 rejection. The interview summary in brief is reproduced below:
“Suggested amended limitations were discussed. As per Examiner, those limitations recite mental process and the claim recites limitations relate to commercial activity falling within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity groupings of abstract ideas. Under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES and also do not recite an inventive concept (step 2B:No]. No agreement reached. Further subject matter was discussed with the Applicant and the Attorney for patentable subject matter. Examiner assured that any further amendment, when formally submitted, would be reconsidered.”.
This telephone interview was conducted subsequent to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claim 21 is to a system /apparatus, which is statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 21 recites:
21. A computer-implemented system for optimizing asset ownership and control at a transaction level to achieve social good, the system comprising a networked server system, at least one processor, at least one memory, and an application stored in the at least one memory that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to perform operations comprising:
(a) receiving at a server consisting of at least one physical computer a plurality of messages that a plurality of assets have been added to a pool of assets made available to a customer base for use, the messages being sent by a plurality of user devices in the possession of a plurality of assets; -
(b) receiving a plurality of messages at a server consisting of at least one physical computer describing an impending transaction in which a customer intends to acquire a product or service from a for-profit entity, the messages being sent by a plurality of user devices in the possession of a plurality of users;
( c )determining by the processor that a subset of the customer base indicated interest in using a first asset, wherein a first group of customers in the subset do not immediately need the first asset arranging in the computer memory the subset by chronological time periods of interest expressed by customers in the subset.
(d) selecting by the processor based on the interested chronological time period of subset customers, a first set of subset customers to receive use of the first asset during specific time periods at least partially matching their chronological time periods of interest, the selection placing the first group for first asset use at a late stage in a useful life of the first asset.
( e ) providing in the computer memory the pool of assets available to customers in transactions with asset ownership entities.
(f) selecting by the processor asset ownership entities for specific transactions based on the entities' abilities to generate maximum economic benefit from ownership of a subject asset and return a portion of realized benefits to users of the assets in the transactions
(g) arranging by the processor ownership transactions for the first asset for future execution based on an expected future set of conditions for a user.
(h) chronologically allocating usage of the first asset by the server to user devices in the subset based at least on the users' expressed chronological needs for the first asset and further based on users' fitness to use the first asset, the fitness determined by the processor and assigning assets to combinations of interested users and asset ownership entities considered most optimal based on evaluations by the processor;
(i) responsive to the message, determining availability of the product or service from a plurality of candidate vendor entities, the candidate vendor entities including at least one for-profit entity that is owned by a non-profit institution by applying stored vendor-ownership descriptors and a rule set requiring that the vendor is owned by or designated for acquisition by a nonprofit recorded via the entity creation component ;
(j) selecting a first for-profit entity from the plurality of candidate vendor entities to participate in the transaction, wherein the first for-profit entity is owned by a first non-profit institution or is designated for acquisition by a first non-profit institution, the selecting being based at least in part on:
(i) whether the candidate entity is owned by, or is to be acquired by, a non- profit institution; and
(ii) legal, structural, tax, and financial characteristics of the candidate entity suited to achieving maximum economic benefit for the transaction, including the entity's ability to extract economic benefit from ownership and to compensate for legal, structural, tax, or financial weaknesses of the user; and
(iii) where applicable, an analysis of ownership characteristics indicative of a propensity of the entity's owners to divest to a non-profit institution and an analysis of non-financial stakeholder goals ;
(k) if the first for-profit entity is not already owned by a non-profit institution, creating the first non-profit institution with a stated charitable mission aligned to stakeholder values, and directing consummation of an acquisition of the first for- profit entity by the first non-profit institution ;
(l) facilitating and overseeing consummation of the transaction between the user and the first for-profit entity under ownership or control of the first non-profit institution ;
(m) verifying alignment by comparing a set of buyer cause identifiers (stored in the buyer profile) to distribution-policy identifiers of the nonprofit owner and requiring at least one identifier match;
(n) upon completion, writing an audit record and automatically checking subsequent distributions for a configured match threshold;
(o) determining that distributions of profit by the first non-profit institution resulting from the transaction align with predefined values or mission statements of the user and of previous owners of the first for-profit entity; and
(p) upon completion of the transaction, automatically auditing the first non-profit institution's subsequent distributions of profits to verify continued alignment with non-financial goals of the stakeholders.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 21 recites abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ (a) receiving a plurality of messages that a plurality of assets have been added to a pool of assets made available to a customer base for use, the messages being sent by a plurality of user [s]; (b) receiving a plurality of messages describing an impending transaction in which a customer intends to acquire a product or service from a for-profit entity, the messages being sent by a plurality of users; (c) determining that a subset of the customer base indicated interest in using a first asset, wherein a first group of customers in the subset do not immediately need the first asset arranging the subset by chronological time periods of interest expressed by customers in the subset; (d) selecting based on the interested chronological time period of subset customers, a first set of subset customers to receive use of the first asset during specific time periods at least partially matching their chronological time periods of interest, the selection placing the first group for first asset use at a late stage in a useful life of the first asset; ( e). providing the pool of assets available to customers in transactions with asset ownership entities; (f) selecting asset ownership entities for specific transactions based on the entities' abilities to generate maximum economic benefit from ownership of a subject asset and return a portion of realized benefits to users of the assets in the transactions; (g) arranging ownership transactions for the first asset for future execution based on an expected future set of conditions for a user; (h) chronologically allocating usage of the first asset to user [s] in the subset based at least on the users' expressed chronological needs for the first asset and further based on users' fitness to use the first asset, the fitness determined assigning assets to combinations of interested users and asset ownership entities considered most optimal based on evaluations”, relate to a commercial activity of arranging a plurality of assets for a subset of customers interested in acquiring in a chronological time basis as per their requirements from the available plurality of assets from a plurality of users in possession of the assets, which fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" groupings of abstract ideas because they cover commercial concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
The other highlighted limitations comprising, “ (i) responsive to the message, determining availability of the product or service from a plurality of candidate vendor entities, the candidate vendor entities including at least one for-profit entity that is owned by a non-profit institution by applying stored vendor-ownership descriptors and a rule set requiring that the vendor is owned by or designated for acquisition by a nonprofit recorded via the entity creation component ; (j) selecting a first for-profit entity from the plurality of candidate vendor entities to participate in the transaction, wherein the first for-profit entity is owned by a first non-profit institution or is designated for acquisition by a first non-profit institution, ( l) facilitating and overseeing consummation of the transaction between the user and the first for-profit entity under ownership or control of the first non-profit institution;” under their broadest reasonable interpretation relate to a commercial activity of conducting a transaction of selling service(s) by a vendor in response to a received request for a service and the limitations "(k) if the first for-profit entity is not already owned by a non-profit institution, creating the first non- profit institution with a stated charitable mission aligned to stakeholder values, and directing consummation of an acquisition of the first for-profit entity by the first non-profit institution" relate to a commercial related activity of establishing a non-profit organization which all fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" groupings of abstract ideas because they cover commercial concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Thus, the claim 21 recites "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity".
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ ( c) determining that a subset of the customer base indicated interest in using a first asset, wherein a first group of customers in the subset do not immediately need the first asset arranging the subset by chronological time periods of interest expressed by customers in the subset; (d) selecting based on the interested chronological time period of subset customers, a first set of subset customers to receive use of the first asset during specific time periods at least partially matching their chronological time periods of interest, the selection placing the first group for first asset use at a late stage in a useful life of the first asset; (f) selecting asset ownership entities for specific transactions based on the entities' abilities to generate maximum economic benefit from ownership of a subject asset and return a portion of realized benefits to users of the assets in the transactions; (g) arranging ownership transactions for the first asset for future execution based on an expected future set of conditions for a user; ( h). chronologically allocating usage of the first asset to user [s] in the subset based at least on the users' expressed chronological needs for the first asset and further based on users' fitness to use the first asset, the fitness determined assigning assets to combinations of interested users and asset ownership entities considered most optimal based on evaluations; (i) responsive to the message, determining availability of the product or service from a plurality of candidate vendor entities, the candidate vendor entities including at least one for-profit entity that is owned by a non-profit institution by applying stored vendor-ownership descriptors and a rule set requiring that the vendor is owned by or designated for acquisition by a nonprofit recorded via the entity creation component; (j) selecting a first for-profit entity from the plurality of candidate vendor entities to participate in the transaction, wherein the first for-profit entity is owned by a first non- profit institution or is designated for acquisition by a first non-profit institution, the selecting being based at least in part on: (i) whether the candidate entity is owned by, or is to be acquired by, a non-profit institution: and (ii) legal, structural, tax, and financial characteristics of the candidate entity suited to achieving maximum economic benefit for the transaction, including the entity's ability to extract economic benefit from ownership and to compensate for legal, structural, tax, or financial weaknesses of the user: and (iii) where applicable, an analysis of ownership characteristics indicative of a propensity of the entity's owners to divest to a non-profit institution and an analysis of non-financial stakeholder goals; (m) verifying alignment by comparing a set of buyer cause identifiers (stored in the buyer profile) to distribution-policy identifiers of the nonprofit owner and requiring at least one identifier match; (n) upon completion, writing an audit record and automatically checking subsequent distributions for a configured match threshold; (o) determining that distributions of profit by the first non-profit institution resulting from the transaction align with predefined values or mission statements of the user and of previous owners of the first for-profit entity; and (p) upon completion of the transaction, auditing the first non-profit institution's subsequent distributions of profits to verify continued alignment with non- financial goals of the stakeholders.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer components such as server, devices , and processor nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the use of server, devices , and processor” language, the claim encompasses a person lor group of persons processing information about assets to be acquired by interested customers available from those who possess the assets and arrange their provision according to a chronological timing needs of the interested customers. Also, a person looking at collected vendor data forms a simple judgement of selecting a vendor who would be available to respond to the service request, and to check if the selected vendor is non-profit entity or the vendor is to be acquired by a non-profit entity and base the selection if the non-profit entity fulfills/satisfies all legal , structural, tax, financial requirements, analyzing, where applicable, if ownership characteristics are indicative of a propensity of the entity's owners to divest to a non-profit institution and an analysis of non-financial stakeholder goals, determining that distributions of profit by the first non-profit institution resulting from the transaction align with predefined values or mission statements of the user and of previous owners of the first for-profit entity, and upon completion of the transaction, auditing the first non-profit institution's subsequent distributions of profits to verify continued alignment with non- financial goals of the stakeholders. The mere nominal recitation of using a server, devices , and processor does not take these claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 21 recites a mental process.
Since claim 21 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a server computer, computer devices, and generic computer processors executing the steps of (a), (b), (c), through m, n, o, and p.
The limitations “ (a) receiving at a server consisting of at least one physical computer a plurality of messages that a plurality of assets have been added to a pool of assets made available to a customer base for use, the messages being sent by a plurality of user devices in the possession of a plurality of assets; (b) receiving a plurality of messages at a server consisting of at least one physical computer describing an impending transaction in which a customer intends to acquire a product or service from a for-profit entity, the messages being sent by a plurality of user devices in the possession of a plurality of users; and ( e ) providing in the computer memory the pool of assets available to customers in transactions with asset ownership entities.” , are mere data gathering , and outputting/storing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting/providing. See MPEP 2106.05. These limitations are performed by computer devices which are recited at a high level of generality, and these computer devices are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data and providing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations of steps c, d, f, g, h, I, j, m, n, o, and p the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps “ (k) if the first for-profit entity is not already owned by a non-profit institution, creating the first non-profit institution with a stated charitable mission aligned to stakeholder values, and directing consummation of an acquisition of the first for-profit entity by the first non-profit institution; and (e)facilitating and overseeing consummation of the transaction between the user and the first for-profit entity under ownership or control of the first non-profit institution ;”, relate to creating a non-profit organization and facilitating a sales transaction, are long-standing commercial processes and the limitations are not directed to an improvement in computer functioning and as such merely using a processor to implement these long-standing commercial processes do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 21 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 21 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Thus, (Step 2A: YES). Claim 21 is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim 21 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are a, b, c, d, e ,f, through m, n, o, and p additional elements. The additional element of “using processor” in limitations c, d, f, g, h, I, j, m, n, o, and p are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, the additional elements of using processor in limitations k, and l , as analyzed in Step 2A, relate to creating a non-profit organization and facilitating a sales transaction, are long-standing commercial processes and the limitations are not directed to an improvement in computer functioning and as such merely using a processor to implement these long-standing commercial processes do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additional elements in steps a, b, and e were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and providing/storing. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two , it should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “(a) and (b) receiving messages and in ( e) providing pool of assets to customer transactions describing an impending transaction …;” are recited at a high level of generality. These element amounts to receiving data over a network and storing data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving steps and providing/storing data are well‐understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim 21 is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claim 21 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claim 21 is patent ineligible.
4. Prior art discussion.
Reference claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or combined neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising, “ a processor determining that a subset of the customer base indicated interest in using a first asset, wherein a first group of customers in the subset do not immediately need the first asset arranging in the computer memory the subset by chronological time periods of interest expressed by customers in the subset, selecting, based on the interested chronological time period of subset customers, a first set of subset customers to receive use of the first asset during specific time periods at least partially matching their chronological time periods of interest, the selection placing the first group for first asset use at a late stage in a useful life of the first asset, selecting asset ownership entities for specific transactions based on the entities' abilities to generate maximum economic benefit from ownership of a subject asset and return a portion of realized benefits to users of the assets in the transactions, arranging ownership transactions for the first asset for future execution based on an expected future set of conditions for a user, chronologically allocating usage of the first asset by the server to user devices in the subset based at least on the users' expressed chronological needs for the first asset and further based on users' fitness to use the first asset, and assigning assets to combinations of interested users and asset ownership entities considered most optimal based on evaluations by the processor; and responsive to the message, determining availability of the product or service from a plurality of candidate vendor entities, the candidate vendor entities including at least one for-profit entity that is owned by a non-profit institution, selecting a first for-profit entity from the plurality of candidate vendor entities to participate in the transaction, wherein the first for-profit entity is owned by a first non- profit institution or is designated for acquisition by a first non-profit institution, the selecting being based at least in part on: (i) whether the candidate entity is owned by, or is to be acquired by, a non-profit institution: and (ii) legal, structural, tax, and financial characteristics of the candidate entity suited to achieving maximum economic benefit for the transaction, including the entity's ability to extract economic benefit from ownership and to compensate for legal, structural, tax, or financial weaknesses of the user: and (iii) where applicable, an analysis of ownership characteristics indicative of a propensity of the entity's owners to divest to a non-profit institution and an analysis of non-financial stakeholder goals; if the first for-profit entity is not already owned by a non-profit institution, creating the first non-profit institution with a stated charitable mission aligned to stakeholder values, and directing consummation of an acquisition of the first for-profit entity by the first non-profit institution, determining that distributions of profit by the first non-profit institution resulting from the transaction align with predefined values or mission statements of the user and of previous owners of the first for-profit entity, and upon completion of the transaction, automatically auditing the first non-profit institution's subsequent distributions of profits to verify continued alignment with non- financial goals of the stakeholders.
5. Allowability Note: If the claim 21 is amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, it can be placed in condition for allowance. However, all further amendments will be subject to reconsideration and search.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2025, see Remarks pages 1-2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks are directed to35 USC 101 rejection
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, “ The server: constructs a time-indexed allocation schedule for asset use over the useful life of an asset; computes fitness scores and uses them, together with time windows, to assign usage to different users; automatically creates or selects nonprofit ownership entities when necessary; and performs ongoing electronic audits of distributions using stored identifiers and thresholds, without human discretion in the loop. So, even if you still view the underlying goal as organizing transactions, each step is integrated into a specific computerized workflow that changes how assets and nonprofit entities are managed at scale. That's the practical-application hook we're trying to spell out.”, because as analyzed above in paragraph 3 under Step 2A, Prong 1 the limitations reciting indexing allocation schedule, computing fitness scores and arranging them chronologically for use, performing audits using collected data of identifiers and thresholds fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and can process the data as required using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Though these steps are recited as being performed by a generic computer, the computer is recited at a high level of generality. and the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In view of the foregoing, the claim 21 does recite an abstract idea and the additional elements, as recited, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner also disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, “ Step 2B / "significantly more" The additional elements aren't just 'do it on a computer.' The way we've combined them is not conventional: chronologically placing a first group's use of an asset late in the asset's useful life while assigning other users earlier, to maximize economic extraction; binding transactions to entities that are either already nonprofit-owned or are automatically moved into nonprofit ownership; and automatically generating audit records and subsequent distribution checks that gate future transactions if alignment with stakeholder-value identifiers falls below a threshold. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the application is in condition for allowance. The examiner is kindly asked to make examiner's amendments as necessary to put the application in condition for allowance, “ because Step 2B analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, in paragraph 3 above all the additional elements a, b, c, through m, n, o, and p were considered in Step 2A both individually and in combination and are at best
amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, none of the limitations recites an unconventional network architecture , specialized hardware or claimed improvement to the functioning of the server or a computer processor and as such cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
7. The prior art cited pertinent to the claimed invention but not considered.
(i) Dayalan cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025 [US 8489507; see Abstract] describes a method for performing payments in remote transactions between buyer and vendor wherein a system processed payments in remote transactions including an IVR center and a server by receiving a request for token from a buyer to purchase products from a vendor, and to receive information about the product, provide the token to the buyer, access a database including information from vendor's and buyer's accounts, and transfer funds from buyer's account to vendor's account upon buyer confirmation.
(ii) Yang et al. cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025 [US 2023/0274323 A1; see para 0016] describes that an organization can include a for-profit organization; a non-profit organization.
(iii) DePena cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025 [US 20070094112A1; see at least para 0014] describes a method which integrates the charitable donation process with a real estate transaction by a charitable fund-raising program which facilitates real estate-related transactions that directly contribute to non-profit charitable organizations.
(iv) Wang et al. [US 20130246859 A1; see para 0071] describes the concept of chronically arranging time periods as per the interest of the customers by arranging the subset by chronological time periods of interest expressed by customers in the subset.
Foreign reference:
(v) CN 114139994A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025 [See under heading, “ Pre-analysis”] describes a power system having three roles of a supplier, a user, and a control-center, wherein the supplier generates electric quantity to supply the user and make money from the use, the users purchase electricity from suppliers to complete their own production and life needs, and the control center is a non-profit organization, by designing reasonable pricing scheme and related reward and punishment mechanism to meet the supply and demand balance, to maintain the normal operation of the power system, relieving power shortage, reducing the power consumption cost.
NPL reference:
(vi) E. Isaeva and A. Sokolov, "Electronic Portal of Non-Profit Organizations as an Element of the Communication Strategy of Non-Profit Organizations with Target Groups," 2020 IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar (ComSDS), St. Petersburg, Russia, 2020, pp. 50-54, retrieved from IP. Com on 10/31/2025 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/06/2025 [See page 1} describes the activities of non-profit organizations based on the principles of voluntariness, personal involvement and the desire to solve socially significant problems and the use of the Internet for additional opportunities to ensure the effectiveness of communication strategies of non-profit organizations with target groups.
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 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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights