DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative states that independent claim 1 has been amended to recite a
highly specific, multi-step process executed by a server to dynamically manage terminal-specific investment states.
Applicant’s representative argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
In response the claims as now amended still fail to recite specific computer structures to
implement the claimed functions. The broad recitation of a “server” having a processor and a memory for performing the claimed functions of displaying, receiving and transmitting are not specific compute structures, as these claimed functions can be performed mentally and manually. The claimed functions of calculating, setting, comparing, detecting and updating are and can be mentally processed to perform the related claimed functions.
The claimed functions are merely generic functions of “updating” and “transmitting” are insignificant post solution activities. Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of a generic device to display, calculate, compare, update and transmit data.
The question in step two of the Alice framework is not whether an additional feature is novel but whether the implementation of the abstract idea involves "more than [the] performance of 'well--understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
The instant claims recite a generic server having a processor and memory. The examiner notes that these are conventional components of a computer. The use of a computing device or server for performing routine computer functions for facilitating trades or business functions and mathematical calculations are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The claims do not appear to improve on any technology. The problem that was solved in DDR was with the architecture of their overall system. The instant claims merely receive, retrieve, display and transmit data. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the processor, receiving device or the database or the architecture of the overall system or server.
The claims still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions.
The mere recitation of a generic computing device or server with a processor or memory cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed server with a processor and memory are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology, as such does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Applicant’s representative then argues that under the Revised Step 2B Analysis, the claims amount to significantly more and amended independent claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter that is both integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) and contains an inventive concept (Step 2B).
In response, the reliance of a computer or server to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic server can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed server noted in the applicant's specification is a routine computer processor or computer performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore, there is not a showing or description of initiating, setting, calculating, comparing, transmitting and updating the server to effect specific improvements to the computing system or server.
Furthermore, there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the server, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
A rejection of the claims as now amended is found below.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites:
A method of providing a design crowdfunding service for a design product in a design crowdfunding system comprising
a server having a processor and a memory, the method comprising:
initiating, by the server, crowdfunding by exposing an image of the design product to investor terminals;
setting, by the server, an investment period for the design product;
calculating, by the server, a first real-time rate of return according to an influx of an existing investor, and providing a first displayed rate of return corresponding to the first real-time rate of return to an existing investor's terminal;
calculating, by the server, a second real-time rate of return according to an additional influx of an additional investor, and providing a second displayed rate of return corresponding to the second real-time rate of return to an additional investor's terminal;
comparing, by the server, a difference between the first real-time rate of return and the second real-time rate of return to a reference rate of return for a specific return rate section among a plurality of rate of return sections stored in the memory;
transmitting, by the server, an inquiry to the existing investor's terminal about whether to refund an investment amount of the existing investor when the difference is above the reference rate of return for the specific return rate section;
updating, by the server in the memory, the first displayed rate of return based on a response signal received from the existing investor's terminal in response to the inquiry, thereby generating an inconsistency state between the displayed rate of return for the existing investor and the second displayed rate of return for the additional investor;
settling, by the server after the investment period has elapsed, an amount of profit for the crowdfunding based on a number of sales and a displayed rate of return for each investor;
detecting, by the server, whether the displayed rate of return for each investor is in the inconsistency state; and
calculating, by the server, a difference amount due to the inconsistency in the displayed rate of return, and distributing the difference amount according to a set distribution policy,
wherein the real-time rate of return is calculated by dividing a value obtained by subtracting a production price from a sales price of the design product by a total investment amount of the existing investor.
Claim 3 recites wherein the reference rate of return for each section is set differently according to a plurality of rate of return sections to increase as an average rate of return of the plurality of rate of return sections increases.
Claim 4 recites:
refunding, when a refund request signal is received from the existing investor's terminal in response to the inquiry about whether to refund, a predetermined amount of the existing investor's investment amount, and calculating a third real-time rate of return based on the total investment amount excluding the refund amount; and
maintaining, when a refund non-request signal is received from the existing investor's terminal in response to the inquiry about whether to refund, the second real-time rate of return.
Claim 5 recites:
updating, in response to the refund request signal, the first displayed rate of return to a third displayed rate of return corresponding to the third real-time rate of return to provide the updated third real-time rate of return to the existing investor's terminal; and
updating, in response to the refund non-request signal, the first displayed rate of return to the second displayed rate of return corresponding to the second real-time rate of return to provide the updated second displayed rate of return to the existing investor's terminal.
Claim 6 recites wherein the third displayed rate of return is equal to the first displayed rate of return, or is higher than the second displayed rate of return and is lower than the first displayed rate of return.
Claim 7 recites wherein the settling of the amount of profit further comprises:
counting the number of sales of the design product;
calculating the amount of profit through multiplying a value obtained by multiplying the sales price of the design product by the number of sales by the displayed rate of return, and further multiplying by a value obtained by dividing the investment amount for each investor by the total investment amount; and paying the amount of profit for each of investor.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the settling of the amount of profit further comprises:
checking whether the displayed rate of return for each investor is inconsistent;
calculating, when the displayed rate of return for each investor is inconsistent, a difference due to an inconsistency in the displayed rate of return; and distributing the difference to at least one of a designer, a producer, an investor, and an operator according to a set distribution policy.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the calculating of the difference further comprises:
calculating a maximum amount of profit based on the highest maximum displayed rate of return among the displayed rates of return for each investor; and
subtracting the amount of profit that has been paid based on the displayed rate of return for each investor from the maximum amount of profit.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the settling of the amount of profit further comprises determining that there has been no request for a refund from the existing investor when the displayed rate of return for each investor is consistent, and completing the settlement of the amount of profit.
The claims in general are directed to providing a design crowdfunding service for a design product by performing a number of calculations in determining the rate of return for an investor at the time of funding or refunding by the investor. The functions involve a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal interactions, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) which involve a fundamental business practice.
The claims also include a number of mathematical algorithms in performing the recited
functions.
Thus, thus, the claims include an abstract idea.
Applicant is reminded that a system, apparatus or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps or functions of having an expected rate of return being “settling, after the investment period has elapsed, an amount of profit for the crowdfunding based on a number of sales and a displayed rate of return for each investor, detecting, whether the displayed rate of return for each investor is in the inconsistency state, and calculating, a difference amount due to the inconsistency in the displayed rate of return, and distributing the difference amount according to a set distribution policy, wherein the real-time rate of return is calculated by dividing a value obtained by subtracting a production price from a sales price of the design product by a total investment amount of the existing investor” amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or server or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer, including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “system”, “server”, and “terminal” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The functions of “transmitting, an inquiry to the existing investor about whether to refund an investment amount of the existing investor when the difference is above the reference rate of return for the specific return rate section, updating, the first displayed rate of return based on a response signal received from the existing investor in response to the inquiry, thereby generating an inconsistency state between the displayed rate of return for the existing investor and the second displayed rate of return for the additional investor, settling, after the investment period has elapsed, an amount of profit for the crowdfunding based on a number of sales and a displayed rate of return for each investor, detecting, whether the displayed rate of return for each investor is in the inconsistency state, and calculating, by the server, a difference amount due to the inconsistency in the displayed rate of return, and distributing the difference amount according to a set distribution policy, wherein the real-time rate of return is calculated by dividing a value obtained by subtracting a production price from a sales price of the design product by a total investment amount of the existing investor” is similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more server having a processor.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of facilitating a transaction.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a server with a processor and memory, “terminal” or “system” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed
elements are noted to a be a generic computer or server performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed server with a processor and memory, a “system” and “terminal” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“comparing, by the server, a difference between the first real-time rate of return and the second real-time rate of return to a reference rate of return for a specific return rate section among a plurality of rate of return sections stored in the memory, updating, by the server in the memory, the first displayed rate of return based on a response signal received from the existing investor's terminal in response to the inquiry, thereby generating an inconsistency state between the displayed rate of return for the existing investor and the second displayed rate of return for the additional investor, settling, by the server after the investment period has elapsed, an amount of profit for the crowdfunding based on a number of sales and a displayed rate of return for each investor, detecting, by the server, whether the displayed rate of return for each investor is in the inconsistency state, and calculating, by the server, a difference amount due to the inconsistency in the displayed rate of return, and distributing the difference amount according to a set distribution policy, wherein the real-time rate of return is calculated by dividing a value obtained by subtracting a production price from a sales price of the design product by a total investment amount of the existing investor” as recited in independent claim 1.
Baysal et al. (US 20210241326 A1) disclose a crowdfunding setup for directly supplying services/goods to beneficiaries. The actors are: (i) a plurality of funders, who are able to track where and how their funds are put into use, (ii) a plurality of beneficiaries, who have access to funds only for a specific need of a service or good as opposed to money, (iii) a plurality of service/goods providers, who meet a set of criteria to supply the needed service or good to the beneficiaries, and (iv) a campaign controller, who sets up the campaign that ties together all actors and their actions. Selection of the service provider is based on a plurality of criteria for each campaign where such a selection is based on a combination of actors using a consensus mechanism. Upon collection of funds, the beneficiary is provided the service/good, which is also tracked by the campaign and the funders.
Hoff (US 20140351116 A1) discloses a system and method for funding a risk pairing of a fundable business and a beneficiary for presentation to investors and crowdfunding backers. The suppliers of funds channel the funds through a crowdfunding portal, or broker, to provide debt to the fundable business. During designated times, all or a portion of the repayments may be returned to the investor by the beneficiary through the crowdfunding portal. This allows the investor to supply funds to the business without the investor directly lending to the business. It also allows the business to borrow funds without a subsequent repayment by the business.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
