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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/901,785 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ONLINE MARKETPLACE OF CLAIMS AND ADVANCE FUNDING" filed on July 14, 2026, with claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 14, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on September 30, 2024 and November 18, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer Status
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 14, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application 18/136,145 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A …system for facilitating litigation funding advances, the system comprising:
… receiving claim information on a contentious batch of two or more claims through…;
wherein surfacing the claim information comprises:
…associated with the contentious batch among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of a series of additional
batches, wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of:
…the contentious batch….of the online platform;
the amount of user inputs that each button received; and the amount of …each button received; and based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious batch among the series of buttons;
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first batch of two or more claims corresponding to the claim information; and
initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a legal counsel of the first batch of two or more claims.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between litigant, legal counsel, and/or funder. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “facilitating litigation funding advances” and “transfer the funding advance” and “initiating a first secure transaction” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations][an electronic portal][via the electronic portal] [the amount of storage space] [takes in a database] [network traffic]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[displaying a button ][automatically moving (a button)]:
insignificant extra-solution activity
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[36] User devices may include computing devices such as a computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other device configured for web-browsing.
[121] program sections or program modules can be designed in or by means of .NET FRAMEWORK®, .NET COMPACT FRAMEWORK® (and related languages, such as VISUAL BASIC®, C, etc.), JAVA®, C++, Objective-C, SWIFT®, HTML, JAVASCRIPT®, HTML/AJAX combinations, XML, or HTML and CSS..
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the automatically moving (a button) that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). PC Review ("Windows XP Classic Start Menu - hide unused programs", 2006), "Personalized Menus keeps the Programs menu clean by hiding items you haven't used recently, while still keeping other programs easily accessible."
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 3, 4, and 5:
“computer-implemented”, “online platform”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 6 and 7:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 21:
“computer-implemented”, “self-executing contract and storing the self-executing contract on a blockchain”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 with the additional element of [computer-implemented].
Dependent Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected on the same basis as Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , and 7.
Independent Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 with the additional element of [A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations].
Dependent Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected on the same basis as Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (“REPAYMENT THROUGH NON RECOURSE CONTRACTS RELATED TO LITIGATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20160232631 A1), in view of Burchetta (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVANCED FUNDING FOR PROCEEDS FROM A RESOLVED DISPUTE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060080186 A1),in view of Guo (“METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DYNAMICALLY ARRANGING VIRTUAL KEY POSITION”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 101414240 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Young teaches,
A computer-implemented system for facilitating litigation funding advances, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
(Young [Abstract] to cover litigation related loans...the invention is a computer method
Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [Claim 2] A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions
Young [Claim 1] specific processor or executable computer code)
receiving claim information on a contentious batch of two or more claims through an electronic portal;
(Young [0004] legal claims take years to work their way through the judicial system.
Young [0006] adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims
Young [0006] assessing the reimbursement claim, based on automatic document comparisons
Young [0007] status received by a database litigation file
Young [0002] query and retrieval of information both on the web and on internal servers)
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders via the electronic portal, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
(Young [0004] legal claims
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event, and the CDS seller owes the buyer the protection sought, such payment would not be due until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st following the presentation of the contract for settlement. ...the buyer is required to present the instrument for settlement within a set period, say 30 days, of the credit event.
Young [0003] Certain lenders offer non recourse loans to litigants)
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first batch of two or more claims corresponding to the claim information; and initiating a first … transaction between the one or more potential funders and a legal counsel of the first batch.
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0013] provide the litigant/client and attorney with credit for any monies
Young [0009] certain conditions of non repayment by the litigant, or the lawyer representing the litigant)
Young does not teach secure; wherein surfacing the claim information comprises: displaying a button associated with the contentious batch among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of a series of additional batches, wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of: the amount of storage space … takes in a database of the online platform; the amount of user inputs that each button received; and the amount of network traffic each button received; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious batch among the series of buttons;
Burchetta teaches,
secure (transaction)
(Burchetta [0060] Integrated and robust security services
Burchetta [0070] the computer is secure, for example by the implementation of a “firewall” or protective barrier against unauthorized traffic or the use of encryption technology.
Burchetta [0123] in the party participating in the funding transaction
Burchetta [0045] An electronic application may also be submitted using at least one digital signature.)
wherein surfacing the claim information comprises: displaying a button associated with the contentious batch among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of a series of additional batches; the button associated with the contentious batch among the series of buttons;
(Burchetta [Abstract] dispute resolution with advance funding capability.
Burchetta [0095] a link, graphic, or banner on a web page 12 could direct a user of an online dispute resolution system ... using RapidFunds. The information may be in close proximity to the user login,... to activate the link (e.g.: an electronic docket...). It would highlight the advanced funding feature
Burchetta [0097] linking the advance payment function may be featured at the bottom of each screen. The link could be used to allow the party to authorize the advance funding on the condition that the case or claim settles.
Burchetta [0036] the indefinite article “a” or “an” and the phrase “at least one” shall be considered, where applicable, to include within its meaning the singular and the plural, that is, “one or more”.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the security teachings of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security services) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication” Burchetta [0070])
Burchetta does not teach wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of: the amount of storage space … takes in a database of the online platform; the amount of user inputs that each button received; and the amount of network traffic each button received; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact,
Guo teaches,
wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of: the amount of storage space … takes in a database of the online platform; the amount of user inputs that each button received; and the amount of network traffic each button received; and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact,
(Guo [Abstract] arranging the position of virtual key dynamically, in a hierarchical structure, arrange multiple virtual keys in the hierarchical level of the hierarchical structure dynamically, the multiple virtual keys are used for controlling an application program, ... changing the hierarchy of the virtual key in the hierarchical structure, and calculating the number of times the virtual key is clicked;....and changing the level of a virtual key with the highest clicked time in the hierarchical structure.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the dynamic button arrangement of Guo for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Guo [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dynamic button arrangement) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “changing the level of the virtual key in the hierarchical structure” Guo [Claim 3])
Regarding Claim 2,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders further comprises:
(Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;
Young [0006] adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims)
providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious batch and the series of additional batches, wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
(Young [0015] receiving from a user, through an input device... guiding the user through a series of graphical user interface queries
Young [0034] conditioning software to parse, filter and generally extract pay out data received from system
Young [0006] electronic triggering of critical events; adjusting the claims; and the electronic processing of reimbursement claims
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data into the invention system)
Regarding Claim 4,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders further comprises
(Young [0015] web pages and documents having descriptions of one or more loan entities satisfying search criteria offering the non recourse contract terms;)
Young does not teach controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
Burchetta teaches,
controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
(Burchetta [0070] may be password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorized access. ...a user authorization code providing access control to the system. For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication, for example through the use of voice pattern, fingerprints, physical signature, or “smart” card. )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the security teachings of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security services) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication, for example through the use of voice pattern, fingerprints, physical signature, or “smart” card” Burchetta [0070])
Regarding Claim 5,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein initiating the first … transaction between the first funder and the legal counsel of the first batch comprises:
(Young [0004] many lenders offer such litigants non recourse loans
Young [0022] a screen for inputting data
Young [Claim 2] market participant to provide a premium payment to the first market participant in exchange for the contingency payment electronically triggered by the occurrence of the credit event;
Young [0056] the amount advanced
Young [0013] provide the litigant/client and attorney with credit for any monies
Young [0009] certain conditions of non repayment by the litigant, or the lawyer representing the litigant)
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
(Young [0056] allowing the lender to offer the contract to the potential indemnitee at said posted premium dependent on at least a specified recovery amount in the future...having been advanced
Young [0007] a second computer interface for allowing the first participant to post the requested premium
Young [Abstract] transferring to the second market participant a sum of money)
Young does not teach secure; reviewing and approving the incoming payment request; generating an outgoing payment request to the legal counsel to transfer the funding advance to the legal counsel; and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Burchetta teaches,
secure (transaction)
(Burchetta [0060] Integrated and robust security services
Burchetta [0070] the computer is secure, for example by the implementation of a “firewall” or protective barrier against unauthorized traffic or the use of encryption technology.
Burchetta [0123] in the party participating in the funding transaction
Burchetta [0045] An electronic application may also be submitted using at least one digital signature)
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request; and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
(Burchetta [0044] After subjecting the application for review
Burchetta [0152] In the event of approved funding
Burchetta [0047] the payment of proceeds is adjusted as a function of approving the application
Burchetta [Claim 25] approving the application whereby the payment of proceeds will consist of an agent's fees.)
generating an outgoing payment request to the legal counsel to transfer the funding advance to the legal counsel;
(Burchetta [Abstract] An authorization for at least one entity to accept a payment of proceeds...in exchange for having funds provided to the first party is received and funds are transferred from the entity to the first party.
Burchetta [0005] with advance funding capability
Burchetta [0036] a claimant or claimant's agent (e.g.: an attorney or arbitrator), submits a claim
Burchetta [0037] first party comprises an attorney )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the security teachings of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security services) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “protective barrier against unauthorized traffic or the use of encryption technology” Burchetta [0070])
Regarding Claim 6,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch; and initiating a second … transaction between the legal counsel and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
(Young [0059] If final judgement is rendered, then the apparatus 400 via processor 312, executes the function whether the litigant is entitled to recovery 309, determining the amount of recovery 311, and generating letters 313 and generating autopay 315 regarding automatically paying an amount of money dependent on the CDS contract.
Young [0042] in the event of a credit event,... until a date certain, such as by way of example, the first November 1st
Young [0013] provide the litigant/client and attorney with credit for any monies
Young [0009] certain conditions of non repayment by the litigant, or the lawyer representing the litigant)
Young does not teach secure.
Burchetta teaches,
secure (transaction)
(Burchetta [0060] Integrated and robust security services
Burchetta [0070] the computer is secure, for example by the implementation of a “firewall” or protective barrier against unauthorized traffic or the use of encryption technology.
Burchetta [0123] in the party participating in the funding transaction
Burchetta [0045] An electronic application may also be submitted using at least one digital signature.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the security teachings of Burchetta for “Integrated and robust security services.” (Burchetta [0060]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. security services) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “For increased security, systems may be designed which require user authentication” Burchetta [0070])
Regarding Claim 7,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first batch; and closing the first batch without any payment to the first funder.
(Young [0003] In the event that there fails to be an award of money damages sufficient to repay the loan, the lender is in most instances is unable to collect the outstanding loaned amount, because the loans are non recourse.
Young [0055] If the litigant/indemnitee is not entitled to recovery, the system 300 automatically generates a letter 313, and either mails it through the post, sends it private delivery service, or sends out an email to the litigant/indemnitee.)
Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Burchetta, Guo, and Cella (“SYSTEM AND METHOD OF A SMART CONTRACT AND DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PLATFORM WITH BLOCKCHAIN CUSTODY SERVICE”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20200294128 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Young, Burchetta, and Guo teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
between the legal counsel and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
(Young [0013] provide the litigant/client and attorney with credit for any monies
Young [0009] certain conditions of non repayment by the litigant, or the lawyer representing the litigant)
Young does not teach wherein: initiating a first secure transaction comprises generating a self-executing contract and storing the self-executing contract on a blockchain, and the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch; and automatically performing, via the self-executing contract, a second secure transaction.
Cella teaches,
wherein: initiating a first secure transaction comprises generating a self-executing contract and storing the self-executing contract on a blockchain, and the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch; and automatically performing, via the self-executing contract, a second secure transaction.
(Cella [0148] Smart contracts may or may not be one or more of partially or fully self-executing, or partially or fully self-enforcing.
Cella [1184] may also include a smart contract services circuit 5710 to facilitate services related to a loan 5729 such as creating a smart contract 5722, identifying terms and conditions 5724 for the smart contract 5722, identifying lender priorities and tracking apportionment of value 5726 among lenders. The smart contract services circuit 5710 may provide data to a block chain service
Cella [0189] utilizing outcome information (e.g., where loan transactions are completed successfully or unsuccessfully....)
Cella [0168] a smart contract may calculate whether a lender has satisfied conditions or covenants and in cases where the lender has not satisfied such conditions or covenants, may enable automated action, a notification or alert, or trigger other conditions or terms
Cella [0126] apportionment may include a consideration of the value relative to given transactions—for example a first type of transaction (e.g., a long-term loan) may have a different valuation of a given asset than a second type of transaction
Cella [0134] A distributed ledger may be a ledger that is distributed across a plurality of entities)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the litigation financing of Young to incorporate the self-executing contract of Cella for “a smart contract services circuit 5710 to facilitate services related to a loan.” (Cella [1184]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. self-executing contract) to a known concept (i.e. litigation financing) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a smart contract 5722, ….identifying lender priorities and tracking apportionment of value 5726 among lenders” Cella [1184])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on July 14, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One, and are therefore patent-eligible… Further, the claims do not recite a judicial exception as explained …in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples effective July 17, 2024 ("July Examples"); the October 2019 PEG Appendix issued October 17, 2019 ("October Examples"); the 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42 issued January 7, 2019 ("January-13-
Examples"); and the Examples 1-36 issued between December 16, 2014, through December 16, 2016 ("101 Examples").."
Examiner responds:
The limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between litigant, legal counsel, and/or funder. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “facilitating litigation funding advances” and “transfer the funding advance” and “initiating a first secure transaction” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
The claims perhaps most closely resemble Example 37 – Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface. In example 37, the background of the invention says:
Traditionally, computer users are limited in the ways in which they can organize icons on their display. Additionally, computer users may have a large number of icons on their display, making it difficult to find the icons most used. The typically available ways to organize icons are alphabetically, by file size, and by file type. If a computer user wants a non-typical arrangement of icons, the user would need to manually manipulate the icons on their display. For example, traditional software does not automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the “start” or “home” icon, where they can be easily accessed. Therefore, what is needed is a method that allows for such non-traditional arrangements to be performed automatically. Accordingly, applicant’s invention addresses this issue by providing a method for rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the method moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use.
The explanation for eligibility states: “Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.”
However, in the Instant Application, the disclosure fails to mention nor disparage existing technologies with regard to button arrangement. Moreover, the invention is not directed to buttons or graphical user interfaces.
The background of the invention for the Instant Application describes that in prior art third parties may advance funds for a claimant so they have money for medical care, bills, or food if they are unable to work. “This process has traditionally been a substantially manual process, where claimants, funders, and attorneys must seek out each other through word of mouth.” This alleged improvement remains entirely business and financially oriented, not a technological innovation.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully requests clarification regarding which specific claim
elements are alleged to be directed to which enumerated sub-grouping of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.”
Examiner responds:
As stated earlier, Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea:
“A …system for facilitating litigation funding advances, the system comprising:
… receiving claim information on a contentious batch of two or more claims through…;
wherein surfacing the claim information comprises:
displaying a button associated with the contentious batch among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of a series of additional
batches, wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of:
…the contentious batch….of the online platform;
the amount of user inputs that each button received; and the amount of …each button received; and based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious batch among the series of buttons;
receiving one or more user input from a first funder among the one or more potential funders to transfer the funding advance for a first batch of two or more claims corresponding to the claim information; and
initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a legal counsel of the first batch of two or more claims.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between litigant, legal counsel, and/or funder.
The rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Guo (“METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DYNAMICALLY ARRANGING VIRTUAL KEY POSITION”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 101414240 A).
Cella (“SYSTEM AND METHOD OF A SMART CONTRACT AND DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PLATFORM WITH BLOCKCHAIN CUSTODY SERVICE”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20200294128 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PC Review ("Windows XP Classic Start Menu - hide unused programs", 2006), "Personalized Menus keeps the Programs menu clean by hiding items you haven't used recently, while still keeping other programs easily accessible."
Segal (“DIGITAL ELECTRICAL COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A PREMIUM STRUCTURE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE INCLUDING FOR COUNTERCLAIM COVERAGE”, U.S. Patent Number: US 6615181 B1) proposes supporting a plan of counterclaim insurance provided to professionals, optionally along with professional liability insurance, deters frivolous professional malpractice claims. The insurance plan pays expenses, for example, of counterclaims for malicious prosecution when a frivolous claim has been made and tried to a judgment for the accused professional, and an independent review concludes that the claim was frivolous. The names of covered professionals are posted on a publicly accessible database. If potential plaintiffs or their attorneys find a potential defendant's name on the database, they may be deterred from filing weaker claims that might be viewed as frivolous. Upon approval of an applicant for counterclaim insurance, the applicant's name is posted to a public database, which may be accessible through the Internet, including the World Wide Web, or alternatively through a dial-up facility.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights