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 Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/901,785 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ONLINE MARKETPLACE OF CLAIMS AND ADVANCE FUNDING" originally filed on September 30, 2024, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
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.
Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The identified claims below of Co-Pending Application 18/136145 fully anticipate the respective identified claims of the present application, 18/901,785.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
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:
receiving claim information on a contentious batch of one or more claims through an electronic portal;
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;
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 one 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 one or more claims.
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:
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
and verifying the claim information to determine whether to approve or to reject the contentious claim, wherein if the claim is rejected, the operations further comprise:
requesting additional or alternative information from a user associated with the contentious claim, and wherein if the contentious claim is approved, the operations further comprise:
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;
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 claim corresponding to the claim information;
and initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim, wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a button associated with the contentious claim among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on an online platform caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims;
and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact,the button associated with the contentious claim among the series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional claims, and wherein the amount of impact on the online platform includes one or more of:
the amount of storage space the contentious claim takes in a database of the online platform;
the amount of user inputs that each claim button associated with a claim received;
and the amount of network traffic each button associated with a claim received.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying the contentious batch of one or more claims among a series of additional batches of one or more claims;
and providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious batch of one or more claims and the series of additional batches of one or more claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims;
and providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
Claim 4 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into an online platform.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
Claim 5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the legal counsel of the first batch of one or more claims comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to an online platform;
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.
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant;
and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the legal counsel and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
Claim 7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims;
and closing the first batch of one or more claims without any payment to the first funder.
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim;
and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 8 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
A computer-implemented method for facilitating litigation funding advances, the method comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious batch of one or more claims through an electronic portal;
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;
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 one 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 one or more claims.
A computer-implemented method for facilitating litigation funding advances, the method comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
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;
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 claim corresponding to the claim information;
initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim;
and recording the first secure transaction using blockchain technology, wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a button associated with the contentious claim among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on an online platform caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims;
and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious claim among the series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional
Claim 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: displaying the contentious batch of one or more claims among a series of additional batches of one or more claims;
and providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious batch of one or more claims and the series of additional batches of one or more claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims;
and providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 11 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into an online platform.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into the online platform.
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the legal counsel of the first batch of one or more claims comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to an online platform;
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.
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant;
and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 13 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
further comprising: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the legal counsel and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
further comprising: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
Claim 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 14 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
further comprising: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims; and closing the first batch of one or more claims without any payment to the first funder.
further comprising: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim; and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
Claim 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations for facilitating litigation funding advances, the operations comprising: receiving claim information on a contentious batch of one or more claims through an electronic portal;
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;
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 one 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 one or more claims.
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations for facilitating litigation funding advances, the operations comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious claim through an electronic portal;
determining, using a machine learning model, a rating associated with the contentious claim, wherein the machine learning model is trained using historical claim data including at least one of:
an amount of damages sought, an amount of insurance coverage, an amount settled or awarded, details of a police report, or medical details:
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 and the determined rating;
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 claim corresponding to the claim information;
and initiating a first secure transaction between the one or more potential funders and a claimant of the first claim,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying a button associated with the contentious claim among a series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of additional claims;
determining amounts of impact on an online platform caused by the contentious claim and the series of additional claims;
and automatically moving, based on the determined amounts of impact, the button associated with the contentious claim among the series of buttons each associated with a corresponding one of the series of additional
Claim 16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: displaying the contentious batch of one or more claims among a series of additional batches of one or more claims; and providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious batch of one or more claims and the series of additional batches of one or more claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises:
displaying the contentious claim among a series of additional claims; and
providing user interface elements for filtering the contentious claim and the series of additional claims,
wherein the user interface elements are configured to receive one or more user inputs comprising one or more parameters for filtering.
Claim 18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 18 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the legal counsel of the first batch of one or more claims comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to an online platform;
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.
wherein initiating the first secure transaction between the first funder and the claimant of the first claim comprises:
receiving an incoming payment request from the first funder to transfer the funding advance to the online platform;
reviewing and approving the incoming payment request;
generating an outgoing payment request to the claimant to transfer the funding advance to the claimant;
and reviewing and approving the outgoing payment request.
Claim 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the legal counsel and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a notification of a successful resolution of the first claim;
and initiating a second secure transaction between the claimant and the first funder in an amount stipulated by the payment schedule.
Claim 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 20 of co-pending Application No. 18/136,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the differences with the co-pending application in bold:
Instant Application 18/901,785
Co-Pending Application 18/136,145
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first batch of one or more claims; and closing the first batch of one or more claims without any payment to the first funder.
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of an unsuccessful resolution of the first claim; and closing the first claim without any payment to the first funder.
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 1-20 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 1-20 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 one or more claims through…;
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders…, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
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 one 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 one 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]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools 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 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.
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
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 recites:
“A …method for facilitating litigation funding advances, the method comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious batch of one or more claims …;
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders …, wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
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 one 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 one 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] [an electronic portal][via the electronic portal]: :
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools 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 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 8 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.
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 9:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 10, 11, and 12:
“computer-implemented”, “online platform”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 13 and 14:
“computer-implemented”: 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 15 recites:
“…for facilitating litigation funding advances, the operations comprising:
receiving claim information on a contentious batch of one or more claims …;
surfacing the claim information to one or more potential funders … wherein the claim information comprises payment schedule in return for a funding advance by the one or more potential funders;
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 one 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 one 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:
[A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations] [an electronic portal][via the electronic portal]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools 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 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 15 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.
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 16:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 17 and 18:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”, “online platform”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 19 and 20:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: 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)
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 1-20 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).
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 one 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 one 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 of one or more claims.
(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.
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 2,
Young and Burchetta teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: displaying the contentious batch of one or more claims among a series of additional batches of one or more claims; and
(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 of one or more claims and the series of additional batches of one or more claims, 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 3,
Young and Burchetta teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders comprises: displaying the contentious batch of one or more claims among a series of additional batches of one or more claims;
(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)
determining amounts of impact on an online platform caused by the contentious batch of one or more claims and the series of additional batches of one or more claims; and
(Young [0025] The valuation metrics is the method by which the payout amount due from the protection seller to the protection buyer is calculated.
Young [0006] adjusting the claims;)
arranging the contentious batch of one or more claims among the series of additional batches of one or more claims based on the determined amounts of impact.
(Young [0015] actuarial analysis based on one or more of: the identity of a litigant, type of litigation case, the range of economic damages
Young [0043] based on a formula which considers the following factors:...notional value)
Regarding Claim 4,
Young and Burchetta teach the litigation financing of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Young teaches,
wherein surfacing the claim information to the one or more potential funders 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 an online platform.
Burchetta teaches,
controlling access to the claim information based on whether a user is logged into an 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 and Burchetta 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 of one or more claims 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 an 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 and Burchetta 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 of one or more claims; 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 and Burchetta 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 of one or more claims; and closing the first batch of one or more claims 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 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
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.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
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
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 10am to 4pm 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