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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 12/02/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method (claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7) and a system (claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 14); therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of crowdsourcing for a project, such as when one is fundraising for a given cause (fundraising fees disclosed in paragraph 028 of the specification, or when one is crowdsourcing the development of an idea or other task. This is found to be claiming a certain method of organizing human activities as will be explained below.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 8, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving project information about the non-monetary project from one or more streams;
determining a plurality of crowd source targets based on the project information;
ranking the plurality of crowd source targets based on the project information;
contacting the plurality of crowd source targets in relation to the non-monetary project based on the ranking; wherein the contacting comprises providing immediately selectable specific options for responding,
monitoring responses from the plurality of crowd source targets and aggregating responses; and
monitoring the one or more streams and plurality of crowdsource targets for feedback relating to the non-monetary project, wherein the feedback is other than the response and can be used for future crowd sourcing projects
The above limitations are reciting a process of crowdsourcing for a project that is described as being “non-monetary”. The term “non-monetary” is a descriptive label that is not defining anything to the project itself that is being crowdsourced and does not define anything to the act of receiving project information about a project. Crowdsourcing is the act of using the services of a large number of people to do something, such as to provide information or provide services or provide opinions, or to provide for fundraising, etc.. As is recognized in the specification in paragraphs 002-004, crowdsourcing is known in many different situations (different intended uses) and is an efficient way to employ a large number of people to help with information gathering or raising funds, etc.. Crowdsourcing by definition a human activity that is employing “the crowd” to work on an issue or solve a problem or provide information, etc. ( just as examples). For this reason the claims are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities. Crowdsourcing a project by contracting and obtaining responses and feedback from human beings, whether it be for fundraising or to assist a user in providing data about educational requirements (where the education itself requires fees as the specification teaches in paragraph 028) defines a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to a learning management system. This claim element has been interpreted to be a computer or electronic system of some kind that is being used to receive the project information. The only step of the method that is using the management system is for the receipt of the project information. All of the other recited steps are so broadly recited that they can be performed by people per the claim scope that does not exclude such a situation.
For claim 8, the additional elements claimed is considered to be the recitation to the learning management system that includes a memory for storing instructions, a processor configured to execute the instructions, the recitation to an input module connected to the management system, and a crowdsource module (both provided by the processor).
For claims 1, 8, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a system that comprises a processor and memory (with modules) that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited learning management system, or with a learning management system that comprises a processor and memory and the use of modules to perform step(s) that are considered to define the abstract idea. The learning management system is broadly claimed and even when it is recited as having a memory and processor to perform the recited functions, that is still claiming nothing more than computer implementation for the abstract idea. The claimed modules equate to software routines or software programs that are executed by the processor and that are performing the step(s) that define the abstract idea. These elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a learning management system that can comprise a processor and memory that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (learning management system) with a processor and memory and the use of modules to perform steps that are considered to be defining the abstract idea. As stated for the 2nd prong, the claimed modules equate to software routines or programs that are executing the step(s) that is/are defining the abstract idea. These elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 4, 10, 11, the claimed aggregation of information and the analyzing of information to determine the targets are both elements that are further defining the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8. These broadly recited steps can be performed by people manually and are considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claims do recite the additional elements of the use of an AI tool to aggregate the information and/or analyze the information. The use of an AI tool (requires a computer to execute AI) is taken as a general link to the use of a computer that uses AI to perform step(s) that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a general link to the field of AI for execution of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 7, 13, 14, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claims 1, 8. Determining a course stream in a learning management system, and providing pre-requisites for course learning, are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of claims 1, 8. These steps are broadly recited such that they can be performed by people and the examiner notes that claims 6, 7, do not include any device(s) or technology in connection with the recited steps. People can do what has been claimed. Claims 13, 14, are not reciting the function as being linked to the system either. The claim does not recite any further additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B other than what has been addressed for claims 1, 8. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinner et al. (20150134556) in view of Crawford et al. (20220044582) and in view of Good et al. (20130227384).
For claims 1, 8, Spinner discloses a computer system (computer processor 301) that executes software (the claimed modules of claim 8) and a method for crowdsourcing that uses information about prospective donors (crowd source targets) to rank the donors so that targeted advertising can occur for a given cause (the claimed project). In paragraph 025 it is disclosed that fundraising for educational purposes can occur in Spinner and involves the act of inviting donors to donate or participate in charitable activities. This is disclosed as including a direct request for donations via an email. Spinner discloses that the system can be used with different “causes” such as political fundraising, religious causes, museums, or educational related fundraising, and is considered to satisfy the claimed project that the crowdsourcing is intended to be used for. Spinner discloses that the project can be carried about by a non-profit organization for a given cause. Spinner also discloses the system being used by a for profit entity. The disclosure to a non-profit and their given project is considered to satisfy the limitation of a “non-monetary” project because the goal of the project is not to raise money for profit. Also see paragraph 026 where it is disclosed that the project can be the act of getting people to walk in support of breast cancer, which is not a monetary project. Paragraph 094 discloses that the organization that is using the system may be doing so for the purpose of marketing or business development, to expand a list of contacts. The use of the system with projects that are “other than fundraising” is disclosed in paragraph 094. All of these satisfy the claimed “non-monetary project”.
Also, with respect to the language describing the project as being a “non-monetary” project, this language does not recite any specific structure to the claimed functions/steps of the claim or the project itself. This is because the type of project and what one calls it is directed to non-functional descriptive material. The claimed steps can be used with any type of project because the recited steps are not dependent on the type of project at hand. The recited steps are not performed differently depending on whether or not the project is a monetary project or a non-monetary project. The type of project has no material effect on the claimed steps/functions being performed.
Spinner teaches that information about crowd source targets (people, possible contributors) is used to determine a plurality of targets and teaches that the targets are ranked based on the collected information. See paragraphs 028, 044, 051, 077. Disclosed is that prospective donors are identified by the system and are ranked to allow for prioritization of the prospective donors (the claimed crowd source targets). Spinner is using information about prospective donors, such as past donation activities or third party information (see paragraph 033) to identify donors and to rank the donors.
The claimed contacting the plurality of crowd source targets in relation to the project based on the ranking is the act of sending a communication to a prospective donor, such as an email. In paragraph 044 it is disclosed that a prospective donor is sent an email that is inviting them to donate to a project (to contribute to the given cause). Also see paragraph 025 where the communication is disclosed as including email, text, telephone, in person invites, etc.. this satisfies the claimed contracting of the targets because the prospective donors are sent a request for donations or contributions of some form. This satisfies the claimed contacting of the crowd source targets.
The claimed monitoring of the targets and aggregating the information is satisfied by Spinner teaching that information such as donation amounts is collected and stored by the system. This requires monitoring for a response from the donor such as the donor sending back an affirmative reply to a fundraising request, and storing this fact in memory. See paragraph 028, 072, where it is disclosed that the system collects and stores information about donations made by donors.
Not disclosed by Spinner is that the contacting includes providing immediately selectable options for responding. Also not disclosed is that the streams and the crowdsource targets are monitored for feedback relating to the project that can be used for future crowd source projects. The intended use or reason that one is monitoring for feedback does not receive weight because it does define anything to the monitoring step itself.
With respect to providing immediately selectable options for responding, this limitation reads on the email that is sent to the target in Spinner that includes links or buttons that can be selected by the recipient and that indicate a response to the email. Good discloses a system and method of providing an online platform for a philanthreopic goal or for fundraising. Disclosed in paragraph 197 of Good is that an email is sent to an invited member and that the email includes clickable buttons in the email that allows the user to either accept or deny the request of the email. This is teaching the providing of immediately selectable options in an email that is sent to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Spinner with the ability to have the email that is sent to the crowd source targets include selectable buttons that a user can immediately select to respond to the solicitation of the email. This is simply providing the email of Spinner with selectable options in the form of clickable buttons that the user can select to respond to the email request. This is something that is well known for the use of emails that are soliciting a user, and would have been obvious to provide to Spinner. This would yield the predictable result of allowing the user to easily and quickly respond to the email by selecting one of the buttons included in the email, as taught by Good.
With respect to the monitoring for feedback on the project, Crawford teaches a system and method for an innovation learning system that provides users with feedback on a project. The reference recognizes that for projects, such as educational projects, it is known in the art to obtain feedback about the project, so that the projects can be improved. See paragraphs 119-120. The concept of obtaining feedback about something, so that the feedback can be used later is a concept that is known in many fields and is well known in the art for projects that are being undertaken by people, whatever the project may be concerning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Spinner with the ability to monitor the streams and the crowd source targets for any feedback they want to provide about the project, so that the feedback information can be used later for improvements. The monitoring for feedback regarding a project is claiming the common sense concept of asking others for critique so that a project can be improved and further knowledge can be obtained. Crawford recognizes the importance of obtaining feedback from users about projects so that improvements can be made, and it would be desirable to provide this feature to Spinner so any crowd sourced targets can provide feedback to the system that relates to the project at hand.
For claims 3, 4,10, 11, see paragraph 081 of Spinner where it is disclosed that the system can use a machine learning algorithm (satisfies the claimed AI tool) to analyze the information and learn from past interactions and from past rankings of the crowd source targets. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claims 6, 7, 13, 14, the applicant is reciting the intended use of the project as far as what the project is directed to and intending to do. For claim 1, there is no project in the claim scope other than the fact that the recited steps are intended to be for the project. What the project is or what the intended use of the steps are for, does not define anything further to the claimed method or system. Spinner and the various causes (projects) that are disclosed satisfy what is claimed. As was stated above, calling or labeling the project with descriptive labels does not have any relationship to the claimed steps as far as the claimed steps can be performed the same regardless of the type of project that the system is being used with. The type of project in the claim scope is directed to the intended use of the system and is reciting non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the project itself or the recited steps/functions.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues the mental process category for abstract ideas and argues that the claimed invention cannot be practically performed mentally. This is not persuasive because the abstract idea has been found to be a certain method of organizing human activities, not a mental process. Crowdsourcing for a project is a human activity and can be performed by people with no technology at all, as is evidenced by the scope of method claim 1 that only uses the learning system to receive project information. All of the other recited steps can be performed by people because the claim scope is broad enough to allow for that to occur. Arguing that the claimed invention cannot be performed by a person is not persuasive and is not in agreement with the actual scope of the protection sought in method claim 1.
The applicant argues the claim language on page 6 of the reply and alleges that the claims are eligible because the claims recite features that perform technical functions and solve technical problems that go beyond human activity. The argued use of selectable options for a user to select from is not persuasive because this element is part of the abstract idea. A person can present another person with options that they can immediately select from. There is no specific manner by which the options are being presented, just that the options are presented. What has been argued is part of the abstract idea. The monitoring for feedback limitation is also part of the abstract idea and is not something that renders the claims eligible. Monitoring for feedback is something a person can do by tracking feedback in the form of comments or critique from a user. This is a human activity that is soliciting information from another human being. Nothing that is claimed is technical in nature such that it could not be performed by a person. Even if the claimed method is monitoring for feedback, these elements are part of the abstract idea. They are not additional elements that provide for integration into a practical application or that recite significantly more. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 7 the applicant argues that the claims are rooted in technology to solve a problem with conventional crowd sourcing that addresses non-monetary projects. This does not amount to significantly more and is little more than a general allegation that is repeating the abstract idea in general terms with an allegation that the claims are eligible. The claims are not solving a technical problem and do not result in technology being improved. The claims do not recite any technology that is more than an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. This does not render the claims eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the 35 USC 102 rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that has been set forth in this office action, and that is necessitated by the most recent amendment. This moots the arguments from the applicant. The applicant is referred to the 35 USC 103 rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626