DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 action is in reply to the remarks and/or arguments for Application 18/485,433 filed on 22 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 15-23 have been amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 3 November 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Objections:
With regard to the objection of claims 15-22 for lack of antecedent basis, Applicant’s amendment to the claims in order to address the issue has been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection to the claims is withdrawn.
B. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant's amendments to the claims have been considered and are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112, second paragraph rejection set forth in the previous Office action. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
C. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the basis that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. Applicant argues that the claimed method is not related or directed to any existing commercial practice.
The argument, however, is not persuasive as Applicant's claims are directed toward matching sponsors (e.g., investors) with opportunities (e.g., entrepreneurs, research opportunities, legal prosecutors), which is a commercial or legal interaction because it relates to providing business opportunities both to those ventures in the need of cash with those investors looking to invest in something and make a return on that investment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Because the instant invention is using a bid-like matching process to facilitate such commercial interactions, the invention is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, specifically commercial and legal interactions.
2. Applicant further argues that the claims recite technical features that represent improvements to computer technology.
The argument, however, is not persuasive. The claims do not improve technology inasmuch as the underlying technology remains unaffected. Applicant is merely using existing technology for its intended purpose to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself and not in the underlying technology.
The recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use. The computer devices recited – e.g., “computer”, “database”, “interface”, are not modified, changed, or reconfigured in such a way or manner as to change or affect how such devices are designed to perform or function and are merely used as an intermediary to carry out the inventive concept which has been determined to be abstract. Merely using computer-related components to perform the identified basic functions does not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Nothing in the steps involve an improvement to the conventional functioning of a computer or to any other technology, applying or using a judicial exception with, or, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing aside from merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea while also generally
3. Applicant further argues that the claimed method recites specific mechanisms for maintaining anonymity while enabling real-time data processing, which may represent improvements to computer technology.
The argument, however, is not persuasive. Whether a potential funder is anonymous or not is part of designing an abstract matching process. There is no improvement to any computer or technology with such a feature. Likewise, automatically and anonymously matching data is not an improvement to computer technology because such a feature could be performed by previous computer systems.
4. Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the recited steps into a practical application by improving computer functionality through specific technical implementations for anonymous real-time data processing.
The argument, however, is not persuasive. The revised guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application: 1) an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 2) an additional element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 3) an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 4) an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Examples where a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include: 1) use of "apply it" or the equivalent, i.e., merely using a computer to implement or perform an abstract idea, 2) an additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 3) an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See id.
Applying these considerations to the claims in the instant application, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims fail to recite an improvement of a computer, any improvement to a technology or technical field, any particular machine, any transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or any additional element that uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the claims are merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., "computer implemented method;" "to a computer;" "at the computer;" "using the computer"), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility. See id. Therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
5. Applicant further argues that the real-time feature of embodiments of the present invention represents an improvement to computer technology.
The argument, however, is not persuasive. Whether a potential funder is anonymous or not is part of designing an abstract matching process. There is no improvement to any computer or technology with such a feature. Automatically matching data in real-time is not an improvement to computer technology because such a feature could be performed by previous computer systems.
6. Applicant further argues that even if the claims were considered directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, the claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The argument, however, is not persuasive because when analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice and/or concept of joint financing in an endeavor or venture in an automatic manner using computer-related technology that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
D. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, US 2003/0101115 (“Reddy”), in view of Lee, US 2013/0007099 (“Lee”).
The Office has given consideration to the remarks and amendments made to the pending set of claims, but are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, provided below, for the current listing of amended claims.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, representative claim 1 is directed towards matching opportunity data defining an offer for participation in an opportunity (e.g., planned legal action) and at least one sponsor data item defining a participation offer from a sponsoring party (e.g., investor) to participate. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice and/or concept of joint financing in an endeavor and/or venture in an automatic manner, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial interactions; managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 recites:
“Providing opportunity data, stored in an opportunity database, about the planned legal action from an affected party to the computer, wherein the opportunity data is defined by prosecution resources needed to prosecute the planned legal action, a best possible result that is achieved by a full success of the prosecution and an ask participation quote, wherein the best possible result is an amount of resources, such as material, goods or money, the obtaining of an allowance claim or a prohibition claim, a clarification of a fundamental legal issue,
Obtaining, at the computer, a plurality of sponsor data items each including a participation offer in a real-time bookbuilding process stored in a database wherein the participation offers each include a bid participation quote and an amount of sponsoring resources;
wherein the computer maintains anonymity of sponsoring parties while enabling real-time adaptation of bid participation quotes based on existing sponsor data items;
Using the computer, automatically selecting one or more participation offers from the obtained participation offers by executing a selection algorithm that evaluates the ask participation quote, the prosecution resources, as well as the bid participation quotes and the sponsoring resources of each of the plurality of sponsor data items, wherein the participation offers are selected from the obtained bid participation offers as those which include associated sponsoring resources which sum up to at least the prosecution resources, wherein the participation offers are further selected so that:
the bid participation quotes associated with the selected participation offers are equal or lower than the ask participation quote; and
the total of the sponsoring resources associated with all of the selected participation offers is equal or higher than the prosecution resources; and
Using the computer to automatically match the sponsor data items associated with the selected one or more participation offers with the opportunity data through execution of a computer-implemented matching algorithm, with the aim to enable the prosecution of the defined legal action to be prosecuted”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “computer”, “database”, represent the use of a computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice and/or concept of joint financing in an endeavor or venture in an automatic manner.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice and/or concept of joint financing in an endeavor or venture in an automatic manner using computer-related technology (e.g., computer). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 15 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 15 accordingly.
Independent claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 23 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer program product (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 23 accordingly.
In addition, claim 23 is rejected further under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claims recite in the preamble “a computer usable medium…” Therefore claim 82 is non-statutory because the claims are directed towards storage on a medium or signal per se, which enables any underlying functionality to occur. It is not clear whether the claimed “medium" is in the form of transitory or non-transitory. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant should add the limitation "non-transitory" to read (non-transitory computer-readable [storage] medium).
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-22 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, US 2003/0101115 (“Reddy”), in view of Lee, US 2013/0007099 (“Lee”), further in view of Berman, US 2016/0110674 A1 (“Berman”).
Re Claim 1: (Currently Amended) Reddy discloses a computer-implemented method for matching opportunity data defining an offer for participation in a planned legal action and at least one sponsor data item defining a participation offer from a sponsoring party to participate in prosecution of a planned legal action, the method performed by a specialized computer comprising a processor and memory (¶[0040], teaches the use of a computer system to implement a matching system)
and comprising the steps of:
Providing opportunity data, stored in an opportunity database, about the planned legal action from an affected party to the computer, wherein the opportunity data is defined by prosecution resources needed to prosecute the planned legal action, a best possible result that is achieved by a full success of the prosecution and an ask participation quote, (¶¶[0061, 0062, 0066, 0085, 0087-0088], teaches a source for communicating business opportunity and investment information, including the funding amounts)
wherein the best possible result is an amount of resources, such as material, goods or money, the obtaining of an allowance claim or a prohibition claim, a clarification of a fundamental legal issue, (¶[0088], teaches the amount of funding needed to be raised)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
Obtaining, at the computer , a plurality of sponsor data items each including a participation offer in a real-time bookbuilding process stored in a database wherein the participation offers each include a bid participation quote and an amount of sponsoring resources;
Lee, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶[0054] teaches a real-time system for the matching of funding seekers and providers; ¶¶[0059, 0061] teaches a database for storing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Reddy as disclosed above, for the motivation of achieving opportunities achievable through the combining of resources.
Reddy further discloses:
wherein the computer maintains anonymity of sponsoring parties while enabling real-time adaptation of bid participation quotes based on existing sponsor data items; (FIG. 15; ¶¶[0098, 0153] teaches wherein information may be cloaked or hidden)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
Using the computer, automatically selecting one or more participation offers from the obtained participation offers by executing a selection algorithm that evaluates the ask participation quote, the prosecution resources, as well as the bid participation quotes and the sponsoring resources of each of the plurality of sponsor data items,
Lee, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶[0054] teaches a real-time system for the matching of funding seekers and providers; ¶¶[0059, 0061] teaches a database for storing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Reddy as disclosed above, for the motivation of achieving opportunities achievable through the combining of resources.
Reddy further discloses:
wherein the participation offers are selected from the obtained bid participation offers as those which include associated sponsoring resources which sum up to at least the prosecution resources, wherein the participation offers are further selected so that:
the bid participation quotes associated with the selected participation offers are equal or lower than the ask participation quote;
the total of the sponsoring resources associated with all of the selected participation offers is equal or higher than the prosecution resources;
(¶[0162, 0165], teaches where one of the matching criteria can be the size of the deal sought. Thus, Reddy teaches matching for the amount asked for ("ask participation quote")
Regarding the limitation comprising:
Lee, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶¶0028, 0054] teaches a real-time system for the matching of funding seekers and providers; ¶¶[0059, 0061] teaches a database for storing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Reddy as disclosed above, for the motivation of achieving opportunities achievable through the combining of resources.
Using the computer to automatically match the sponsor data items associated with the selected one or more participation offers with the opportunity data through execution of a computer-implemented matching algorithm, with the aim to enable the prosecution of the defined legal action to be prosecuted.
Re Claim 2: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method according of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the obtaining, at the computer, of the plurality of sponsor data items includes obtaining at least one of sponsor data items in view of the previously obtained sponsor data items, wherein particularly only the bid participation quote and the sponsoring resources associated to each existing sponsor data item are indicated or revealed, wherein particularly the identities of the sponsoring parties are not disclosed. (FIG. 18, [608, 610] teaches wherein sponsor data is provided; FIG. 13 [508] teaches wherein information can be cloaked or hidden)
Re Claim 3: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 2. Reddy doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the participation offers are selected from at least one of: the obtained participation offers as those which have the lowest bid participation quotes which are equal or lower than the ask participation quote; and the obtained bid participation offers as those which include associated sponsoring resources which sum up to at least the prosecution resources.
Lee, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶¶[0022, 0062], teaches wherein criteria matching the correct participant with the right program is considered). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Reddy as disclosed above, for the motivation of achieving opportunities achievable through the combining of resources.
Re Claim 4: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 3. Reddy further discloses:
wherein if more than one of the obtained participation offers of the lowest bid participation quote are selectable only the earliest participation offer is considered so that concurring participation offers will be handled on a first-come, first-served base. (¶¶[0060, 0071, 0080], teaches screening potential opportunities against particular selection criteria)
Re Claim 5: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 4. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the selecting of the participation offers is performed in the computer after the bookbuilding process has been terminated, particularly not before the affected party indicates an end of the method for matching or after a predetermined time period after providing the planned legal action, wherein the participation offers are selected so that - the bid participation quotes associated with the selected participation offers are equal or lower than the ask participation quote, and - the total of the sponsoring resources associated with all of the selected participation offers is equal or higher than the prosecution resources. (¶¶[0063, 0085], teaches particular time period limits)
Re Claim 6: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 5. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the planned legal action is further defined by a detailed description of facts, the best possible result of the planned legal action, prosecution resources, and ask participation quote offered by the affected party. (¶¶0063, 0085, 0160], teaches providing information about the opportunities being presented)
Re Claim 7: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the best possible result after successfully prosecuting the planned legal action is an amount of resources, such as material, goods or money, the obtaining of an allowance claim or a prohibition claim, a clarification of a fundamental legal issue wherein particularly the best possible result comprises one of an amount of resources, obtaining of an allowance claim or a prohibition claim, and a clarification of a fundamental legal issue. (FIG. 15 {463], teaches the business opportunities possible for the investor; ¶¶[0165-0166])
Re Claim 8: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the prosecution resources, the sponsoring resources and/or the best possible result are converted into a resource unit in the computer, such as a currency or blockchain-based token or a kind of unit which make the different items of prosecution resources, the sponsoring resources and/or the best possible result resources comparable. (¶¶[0165-0166], teaches a sponsor’s or investor’s investment resources and/or capability)
Re Claim 9: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 13. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the ask participation quote is increased during the bookbuilding process, particularly in view of the obtained bid participation quotes and associated sponsoring resources of the sponsor data items, and/or wherein the bid participation quote of a sponsor data item is decreased during the bookbuilding process, particularly in view of the obtained bid participation quotes and associated sponsoring resources of the obtained other sponsor data items. (¶¶0062-0063, 0066, 0085], teaches wherein an opportunity’s requirements can be changed at any time)
Re Claim 10: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein it is queried to confirm the ask participation quote, wherein after confirmation the opportunity data is stored in a blockchain based repository, and/or herein it is queried to accept the participation offer, wherein after confirmation the opportunity data is stored in a blockchain based repository. (¶¶0071, 0081], teaches the storing of information in a database repository type)
Re Claim 11: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein a share of how each of the selected sponsor data item will be associated with the actual result of the opportunity is defined by the portion of the sponsoring resource of each sponsor data with respect to the required prosecution resources. (¶¶[0165-0166], teaches considering participation information including investors’ strategic investment requirements)
Re Claim 12: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein after the bookbuilding process has been finished and the opportunity data and the sponsor data items has been matched, equal participation quotes are applied on the result of the prosecution of the planned legal action according to the highest participation quotes of all considered participation offers. (¶¶[0086, 0097, 0165-0166], teaches consideration of investment amounts per investor which is analogous to per share quotes or amounts)
Re Claim 13: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein the degree of participation of sponsor data items at a planned legal action defined by opportunity data after a termination of prosecution of the planned legal action is resolved; (¶¶[0165-0166], teaches rules considered for approval of an investor)
wherein an actual result of the prosecution of a planned legal action is distributed/shared depending on a final participation quote, wherein the final participation quote is particularly defined as the highest participation quote of the selected participation offers. (¶¶[0165-0166], teaches consideration of investment amounts per investor which is analogous to per share quotes or amounts)
Re Claim 14: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Reddy further discloses:
wherein an upfront share of the actual result is distributed among the sponsor data items while the remaining part of the result is distributed among the affected party and the sponsoring parties according to the final participation quote. (¶¶[0165-0166]), teaching that matching can be based on maximum amount of business investment per investor or less than an investor's strategic maximum amount for investment).
Re Claim 15: (Currently Amended) Claim 15 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 16: (Currently Amended) Claim 16 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 17: (Currently Amended) Claim 17 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 18: (Currently Amended) Claim 18 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 19: (Currently Amended) Claim 19 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 20: (Currently Amended) Claim 20 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
Re Claim 21: Reddy in view of Lee discloses the computer system of claim 15. Reddy further discloses:
the computer system is configured to issue a notification that the bookbuilding process will be terminated. (¶¶[0052, 0090], teaches notifying users with results)
Re Claim 22: (Currently Amended) Claim 22 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 13. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 13.
Re Claim 23: (Currently Amended) Claim 23 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biederman, SR. et al. (US 2005/0240578 A1) discloses a LITIGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND
METHOD OF PROVIDING THE SAME. A web-based litigation management system and method which enables users, e.g., lawyers and clients, to monitor and manage at least one lawsuit in a litigation portfolio, manage the performance and expenses of the at least one lawsuit and compile controls/metrics that may be utilized in evaluating and streamlining future litigation is disclosed. Monitoring of a lawsuit is achieved via the entry and update of actual results, actions and events which occur throughout the litigation process. The litigation management system also allows users to: compare budgeted results, actions and expenses with actual results, actions and expenses; monitor
and review legal documents; calculate litigation controls/ metrics; compare the results of pre-selected lawsuit portfolios and the performance of the individuals involved in those lawsuits; document litigation guidelines as required by the client and the lawyer's theory of the case, and provide easy data entry and browsing and searching of documents.
Plate (US 2005/0171874 A1) discloses a SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPORTIONING COMMITMENT UPDATES. Plate discloses a method and system for apportioning financial commitment updates of business partners. According to one embodiment, a contract accounting system receives through a user interface criteria for selecting a subset of business partners whose financial commitments are to be updated, calculates an updated financial commitment of each of the subset of business partners during a predetermined period of time, and transfers the updated financial commitment of each of the subset of business partners to a financial system that maintains current liability information associated with each business partner.
Claims 1-23 are rejected.
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 Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair -
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800 -786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights