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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The invention lacks adequate written description because the specification fails to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail (the corresponding structure for the modules) to establish that the inventor or joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as of the application’s filing date.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 include the limitation “module” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the benefit modeling module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the promotion module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the preference table design module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the interest rate utilization module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a system, claims 12-17 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 12, recites marketing and sponsorship optimization, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “A system for optimizing sponsorship engagements comprising: a data analysis ... configured to analyze current assets data to identify sponsorship or business partnership opportunities, or grants; a benefit modeling ... configured to design a benefit model providing tangible or intangible benefits for current account owners participating in sponsorship or commercial partnership engagements or grants; a promotion ... configured to promote sponsorship opportunities and benefits associated with utilizing liquid assets; a preference table design ... configured to design preference tables for negotiating compensation ratios based on interest rates, account balances, and expected returns; an interest rate utilization ... configured to utilize interest rates and their derivatives in determining the size and scope of sponsorships and commercial partnerships or grants; a benefit size determination ... configured to calculate the size of benefits associated with sponsorship or business partnerships using interest rates, deposits, and time variables; a contracting ... configured to contract for deposit benefits by formalizing agreements for leveraging current deposits in sponsorship engagements or commercial partnerships or grants; a current account data utilization ... configured to utilize financial information from current accounts for activities related to sponsorship or business partnerships or grants; a financial claims ... configured to assert financial claims for sponsorship rights based on outcomes or determinants linked to interest rates; and an obtaining goods or services ... configured to obtain goods or services in kind from sponsors or partners affected by interest rates or deposits in current accounts.” Claim 12 recites abstract limitations including “A method for optimizing sponsorship engagements comprising: analyzing current assets, using a data analysis …data to identify sponsorship or business partnership opportunities or grants; designing a benefit model providing tangible or intangible benefits for current account owners participating in sponsorship or commercial partnership or grants engagements; promoting sponsorship opportunities and benefits associated with utilizing liquid assets; designing preference tables for negotiating compensation ratios based on interest rates, account balances, and expected returns; utilizing interest rates and their derivatives in determining the size and scope of sponsorships and commercial partnerships and grants; calculating the size of benefits associated with sponsorship or business partnerships using interest rates, deposits, and time variables; contracting for deposit benefits by formalizing agreements for leveraging current deposits in sponsorship engagements, commercial partnership, or grants; utilizing financial information from current accounts for activities related to the sponsorship or business partnerships; asserting financial claims for the sponsorship rights based on outcomes or determinants linked to interest rates; and obtaining goods or services in kind from sponsors or partners affected by interest rates or deposits in current accounts.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an abstract idea. That is nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. The claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claim 9, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a system comprising “modules.” Claim 12 is a method that recites limitations performed using “module” data. The modules as claims are lacking structure. The specification also lacks structure for the modules. Therefore the module lacking structure are a generic and conventional component. These modules at most are mere instructions to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a module in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to analyze, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein the current account data utilization module further comprises a data visualization tool providing graphical representations of current account data for easier interpretation and analysis.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 12, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a system comprising “modules.” Claim 12 is a method that recites limitations performed using “module” data. The modules as claims are lacking structure. The specification also lacks structure for the modules. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Use of any type of technology in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) related to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein the current account data utilization module further comprises a data visualization tool providing graphical representations of current account data for easier interpretation and analysis.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (US 20120323801 A1) in view of Farooq et al. (US 20200160237 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Delgado discloses optimizing sponsorship engagements (Abstract, Fig. 5A, discloses the system for sponsorship engagements);
a data analysis module configured to analyze current assets data to identify sponsorship or business partnership opportunities, or grants (¶ 41-43, 73, discloses a sponsorship request and application, ¶ 54, discloses a sponsorship where a requestor pays a sponsor.);
a benefit modeling module configured to design a benefit model providing tangible or intangible benefits for current account owners participating in sponsorship or commercial partnership engagements or grants (¶ 44-47, discloses multiple types of benefits received from the sponsorship);
a promotion module configured to promote sponsorship opportunities and benefits associated with utilizing liquid assets (¶ 49, discloses promoting, requested donation amounts, and amount of charitable funds.);
a contracting module configured to contract for deposit benefits by formalizing agreements for leveraging current deposits in sponsorship engagements or commercial partnerships or grants (¶ 43-44, 61, 63, 85, disclose formalizing sponsorship agreements. ¶ 49, 53-54, disclose financial payment for sponsorship);
a current account data utilization module configured to utilize financial information from current accounts for activities related to sponsorship or business partnerships or grants (¶ 59, disclose account information. ¶ 49, 53-54, 56, 58, disclose financial payment for sponsorship);
Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed.
However, Farooq teaches a preference table design module configured to design preference tables for negotiating compensation ratios based on interest rates, account balances, and expected returns (¶ 110, discloses the SWOT sub module (preference) provide analysis tool to evaluate the strengths, weakness, opportunity and other factor that can enhance the business. ¶ 92, discloses performance reports. ¶ 43, 127-128);
an interest rate utilization module configured to utilize interest rates and their derivatives in determining the size and scope of sponsorships and commercial partnerships or grants (¶ 110, discloses the business performance management module with the KPI sub module provide financial metric may include sales, profit/revenue ratio, market share, growth factors and other key performance indicators. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 127-128);
a benefit size determination module configured to calculate the size of benefits associated with sponsorship or business partnerships using interest rates, deposits, and time variables (¶ 127-128, The earned value analysis module (benefit determination) executed project management to measured forward progress in an objective manner. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 110);
a financial claims module configured to assert financial claims for sponsorship rights based on outcomes or determinants linked to interest rates (¶ 132, discloses the cost/schedule alignment module (financial) executes corrective action to align short/long term goal strategies. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 110-113, 127-128);
an obtaining goods or services module configured to obtain goods or services in kind from sponsors or partners affected by interest rates or deposits in current accounts (¶ 110-113, discloses financial and non-financial metrics. ¶ 108, discloses the supplier management module (goods and service) enables user input supplier related data or link to supplier data. ¶ 83, 92-93, 42-43, 53, 127-128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform the claimed business rates, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such rate features into similar systems. Further, applying the claimed data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a fuller picture of the benefits of the financial relationship.
Regarding claims 2, 13, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed. Farooq further teaches wherein the data analysis module further comprises a predictive analytics component configured to forecast future trends in sponsorship opportunities based on historical data analysis (¶ 125-126 discloses, the analytic platform includes a forecasting sub module which can be used to make forecast about future trend and unforeseen situation. ¶ 90, 93, 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform forecast future trends in sponsorship opportunities based on historical data analysis, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such forecasting features into similar systems. Further, applying forecast future trends in sponsorship opportunities based on historical data analysis would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for a company to move from guess based decision making to evidence based strategies.
Regarding claims 3, 14, Delgado teaches wherein the benefit modeling module further comprises a customization feature allowing current account owners to tailor benefits according to their preferences and interests (¶ 40-44, disclose a sponsorship database with various features. ¶ 6, 49-50, 62). Also disclosed by Farooq ¶ 110, 30-32.
Regarding claims 5, 16, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed. Farooq further teaches wherein the preference table design module further comprises a dynamic adjustment mechanism capable of updating compensation ratios in real-time based on market fluctuations and regulatory changes (¶ 119 discloses a gap analysis sub-module provides the business to determine ways to decrease or fill the gap (adjust/update) within a given time, budget and resources, ¶ 43, 44, 47, 110-111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform compensation ratios in real-time based on market fluctuations and regulatory changes, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such compensation features into similar systems. Further, applying compensation ratios in real-time based on market fluctuations and regulatory changes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for a business to address market changes in real time to allow them to make immediate decisions.
Regarding claims 6, 17, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed. Delgado discloses sponsorships outcomes. Farooq further discloses wherein the interest rate utilization module further comprises a scenario analysis tool allowing stakeholders to simulate the impact of different interest rate scenarios on sponsorship, commercial partnerships, or grants outcomes (¶ 101, discloses the predictive analytics is a statical tool (scenario) which utilize the historical, current data to identify future business and opportunities where the risk and potential can be mitigated, ¶ 110-113, discloses financial and non-financial metrics. ¶ 108, discloses the supplier management module (goods and service) enables user input supplier related data or link to supplier data. ¶ 83, 92-93, 42-43, 53, 127-128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform the claimed business rates, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such rate features into similar systems. Further, applying the claimed data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a fuller picture of the benefits of the financial relationship.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1. Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed. Farooq further discloses wherein the benefit size determination module further comprises a sensitivity analysis function to assess the sensitivity of benefit sizes to changes in interest rates, deposits, and time variables (¶ 49, discloses the business component includes the service performance index which can utilize for evolution of process improvement such as maturity (sensitivity) level ¶ 108, discloses the supplier management module (goods and service) enables user input supplier related data or link to supplier data. ¶ 101, 83, 92-93, 42-43, 53, 127-128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform the claimed business rates, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such rate features into similar systems. Further, applying the claimed data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a fuller picture of the benefits of the financial relationship.
Regarding claim 8, Delgado teaches wherein the contracting module further comprises a compliance verification feature ensuring adherence to legal and regulatory requirements in sponsorship, commercial partnership, or grants agreements (¶ 9, 43-44, 85, disclose the details of managing agreements of the sponsorship ¶ 46, 64, discloses terms and conditions). Also taught by Farooq ¶ 28, 60, 77-83, 98, 116).
Regarding claim 9, Delgado teaches wherein the current account data utilization module further comprises a data visualization tool providing graphical representations of current account data for easier interpretation and analysis (¶ 47, 84-85, discloses a tracking tool for easier interpretation and analysis. ¶ 60, 63). Also taught by Farooq ¶ 92-98, 102, 110, 123.
Regarding claim 10, Delgado teaches wherein the financial claims module further comprises an arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes related to financial claims for sponsorship rights, commercial partnerships, or grants (¶ 10, 21, 79, disclose maintaining rights. ¶ 62-63). Also disclosed by Farooq ¶ 58, 77, 132.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1. Delgado does not teach feedback. Farooq further discloses wherein the obtaining goods or services module further comprises a feedback loop for soliciting feedback from current account owners on the quality and relevance of obtained goods or services (¶ 109, discloses the supplier management module (goods and service) contains information such as dates, product, service, cost, feedback, performance ¶ 49, 67, 91, 99, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform the feedback, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such feedback features into similar systems. Further, applying the claimed data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would for receiving data that would drive positive changes quality and relevance.
Regarding claim 12, Delgado discloses optimizing sponsorship engagements (Abstract, Fig. 5A, discloses the system for sponsorship engagements);
analyzing current assets, using a data analysis module data to identify sponsorship or business partnership opportunities or grants (¶ 41-43, 73, discloses a sponsorship request and application, ¶ 54, discloses a sponsorship where a requestor pays a sponsor.);
designing a benefit model providing tangible or intangible benefits for current account owners participating in sponsorship or commercial partnership or grants engagements (¶ 44-47, discloses multiple types of benefits received from the sponsorship);
promoting sponsorship opportunities and benefits associated with utilizing liquid assets (¶ 49, discloses promoting, requested donation amounts, and amount of charitable funds.);
contracting for deposit benefits by formalizing agreements for leveraging current deposits in sponsorship engagements, commercial partnership, or grants (¶ 43-44, 61, 63, 85, disclose formalizing sponsorship agreements. ¶ 49, 53-54, disclose financial payment for sponsorship);
utilizing financial information from current accounts for activities related to the sponsorship or business partnerships (¶ 59, disclose account information. ¶ 49, 53-54, 56, 58, disclose financial payment for sponsorship);
Delgado does not specifically teach the rates as claimed.
However, Farooq teaches designing preference tables for negotiating compensation ratios based on interest rates, account balances, and expected returns (¶ 110, discloses the SWOT sub module (preference) provide analysis tool to evaluate the strengths, weakness, opportunity and other factor that can enhance the business. ¶ 92, discloses performance reports. ¶ 43, 127-128);
utilizing interest rates and their derivatives in determining the size and scope of sponsorships and commercial partnerships and grants (¶ 110, discloses the business performance management module with the KPI sub module provide financial metric may include sales, profit/revenue ratio, market share, growth factors and other key performance indicators. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 127-128);
calculating the size of benefits associated with sponsorship or business partnerships using interest rates, deposits, and time variables (¶ 127-128, The earned value analysis module (benefit determination) executed project management to measured forward progress in an objective manner. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 110);
asserting financial claims for the sponsorship rights based on outcomes or determinants linked to interest rates (¶ 132, discloses the cost/schedule alignment module (financial) executes corrective action to align short/long term goal strategies. ¶ 83, 92-93, 43, 110-113, 127-128);
and obtaining goods or services in kind from sponsors or partners affected by interest rates or deposits in current accounts (¶ 110-113, discloses financial and non-financial metrics. ¶ 108, discloses the supplier management module (goods and service) enables user input supplier related data or link to supplier data. ¶ 83, 92-93, 42-43, 53, 127-128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform the claimed business rates, as taught/suggested by Farooq. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing business relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Farooq would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Farooq to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such rate features into similar systems. Further, applying the claimed data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a fuller picture of the benefits of the financial relationship.
Claim(s) 4, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado et al. (US 20120323801 A1) in view of Farooq et al. (US 20200160237 A1) in further view of Wallerson et al. (US 20230050219 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 15, the combination of Delgado and Farooq teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 12. The combination does not teach social media channels.
However, Wallerson teaches wherein the promotion module further comprises an automated marketing platform integrating with social media channels to reach a wider audience of current account owners (¶ 37, 43, 46, discloses philanthropic uses of social media sites. ¶ 149, 154-160, discloses sponsorships using social media platforms. ¶ 56, 496, 674).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Delgado to include/perform using social media channels, as taught/suggested by Wallerson. This known technique is applicable to the system of Delgado as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sponsorship relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wallerson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wallerson to the teachings of Delgado would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such social media channels features into similar systems. Further, applying the use of social media channels would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow direct input from the users of the system.
Other pertinent prior art includes Leffew at al. (US 20140249898 A1) which discloses a sponsorship platform. Segal et al. (US 20210350475 A1) which discloses sports teams sponsorships. Dunbar et al. (US 20150262254 A1) which discloses racking, advising and promoting business and organization activities within a community in a continuous integrated sponsorship marketplace and media network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625