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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/959,867 filed on 11/26/2024.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In the instant application, this claim limitations are a data integration module (claim 1), a metric generator (claims 1 and 3), a real-time alert module (claims 2 and 16), and a weight assignment module (claim 7). However, the Examiner has reviewed the Specification and notes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of each of the modules and the generator fail to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions corresponding to these means-plus-function limitations. Accordingly, §112(a) and §112(b) rejections are applied to claims 1-18 below to address this deficiency.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to due to the following grammatic error: Claim 1 refers to “a weighing process” and subsequently refers to “the weighting process,” which is recited in the context of weighting certain data. The term “weighing” as recited in the expression introducing “a weighing process” in claim 1 is best understood by the Examiner as merely a typographical error and therefore will be interpreted as “a weighting process” for purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note: If the claim term “weighing” is not merely a grammatical error (i.e., a misspelling of “weighting”), then the Examiner hereby provisionally rejects claim 1 (and its dependent claims based on inheritance) under §112(b) since the limitation of “the weighting process” would, as a result, lack proper antecedent basis and cause ambiguity of the claim’s scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 16 recite limitations directed to a data integration module (claim 1), a metric generator (claims 1 and 3), a real-time alert module (claims 2 and 16), and a weight assignment module (claim 7). In Figure 1, these modules and the generator are depicted as hollow boxes with no discernible form or structure. Similarly, the Specification refers to the above-noted modules and generator in several instances (pars. 10, 13, 30-35, 38-40, 50-54), but merely refers to their functions, while the Specification is silent regarding the corresponding structure that performs their claim functions. Therefore, the written description fails to specifically disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function for each of the modules and the generator.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7, and 16 fail to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 16 recite limitations directed to a data integration module (claim 1), a metric generator (claims 1 and 3), a real-time alert module (claims 2 and 16), and a weight assignment module (claim 7). However, the written description fails to disclose any specific structure corresponding to each of the modules and the generator, and fails to clearly link the structure to the function corresponding to the modules and generator. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and fail to cure the above-noted deficiency of claim 1, and are therefore indefinite based on their inheritance of the deficiency of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “…present the rating of the organization” and “…view the rating of the organization,” which lack antecedent basis because “the rating” referred to in these phrases has not been introduced into the claims. Although claim 1 introduces “a donor star rating” as one of the plurality of data sources in the first limitation of claim 1, the donor star rating is not indicated as being a rating of the organization, and it is unclear whether the donor star rating and the rating of the organization are intended to refer to the same feature, or whether the donor star rating and the rating of the organization are referring to different ratings entirely. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of “the routing activity update” in two instances in the step directed to “determining a frequency of the routing activity update and assigning a fourth rating to the routing activity update.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis because the limitation “routing activity update” has not been introduced into the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “the routing activity update” will be understood as referring to “the routine activity update” previously referred to in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiency noted above, and are therefore indefinite based on their inheritance of the deficiency of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations of “the overall evaluation metric.” However, this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it has not been introduced into the claim. It is further unclear whether the overall evaluation metric in claim 6 is intended to refer to the evaluation metric in claim 1, or perhaps refer to the overall rating introduced in claim 1, or whether the overall evaluation metric is distinct/different from these limitations, thereby causing ambiguity in claim scope. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13 recites the limitation of “the system portal.” However, this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it has not been introduced into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitations of “the composite evaluation metric” and “the composite score” (claim 14) and “the composite star rating” (claim 15). However, these limitations lack antecedent basis because neither a composite score nor a composite star rating have been introduced into the claims. It is unclear what the composite evaluation metric, score, and star rating refer to or how they are in fact composed (since the term “composite” implies some type of aggregation of values), thereby causing ambiguity in claim scope. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed system is directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Accordingly, claims 1-18 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for considered fundamental economic principles or practices, such as risk mitigation (e.g., reducing risk of fraudulent or underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. [0003], [0005], and [0007]) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
a data integration module configured to collect and aggregate data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the plurality of data sources includes a donor star rating, a photo upload frequency, routine activity updates, financial reporting, and a response time to donor inquiries; wherein each data source is assigned a specific weight via a weighing process based on a set of predefined rules, the weighting process being dynamically adjustable based on real-time data updates (This limitation describes activity considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the collected/aggregated data and weighting of the data sources is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for the generic implementation by the data integration module, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “collect” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
a metric generator configured to process the weighted data from the data integration module and generate an evaluation metric for assessing an organization based on data received for the organization; wherein the organization is a remote computing device configured receive information and send information (This limitation describes activity considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the processing of the weighted data is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for the generic implementation with the metric generator and remote computing device, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
a user interface configured to present the rating of the organization, wherein the user interface allows a donor to view the rating of the organization (This limitation describes activity considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the presentation of rating data is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for the user interface (which is a generic computing element), this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “present” step may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim);
wherein the metric generator having a logic, that when executed by a processor causes the following (This is an additional element evaluated below under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B):
collecting data from the plurality of sources via the data integration module (This limitation describes activity considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the collection of the data is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for generically recited data integration module, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “collecting” step may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim);
averaging a number of donor star ratings received by the system; assigning a first rating to the number of donor star ratings; determining a frequency of image files received by the system from the organization; assigning a second rating to the frequency of image files received (The averaging, assigning, and determining steps describe activities considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the averaged star ratings, assigned first rating, determined frequency, and assigned second rating are performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and furthermore these activities could be implemented as mental activities such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
receiving a donor inquiry and sending the inquiry to the organization (The “receiving” and “sending” activities are considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the receiving of the inquiry is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for generically recited data integration module, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “receiving” and “sending” may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim);
determining a response time of the organization when an input is received from the organization; assigning a third rating to the response time (The “determining” and “assigning” steps describe activities considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the determined response time and assigned third rating are performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and furthermore these activities could be implemented as mental activities such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
receiving a routine activity update from the organization (The “receiving” step is considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the receiving of updated organization activity information is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for generically recited data integration module, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “receiving” may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim);
determining a frequency of the routing activity update and assigning a fourth rating to the routing activity update (The “determining” and “assigning” steps describe activities considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the determined frequency and assigned fourth rating are performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and furthermore these activities could be implemented as mental activities such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
sending a financial reporting section to the organization; receiving the financial reporting section completed from the organization and determining a duration until the system received the completed financial reporting section (The “sending” and “receiving” and “determining” activities are considered fundamental economic principle/practices because these steps are performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for generically recited data integration module, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “sending” and “receiving” may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim);
assigning a fifth rating to the duration; incorporating the first through fifth ratings in an overall rating for the organization (The “assigning” and “incorporating” steps describe activities considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the fifth rating and overall rating incorporating the fifth rating are performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and furthermore these activities could be implemented as mental activities such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
posting the overall rating on the user interface (This limitation describes activity considered fundamental economic principle/practices because the posting of overall rating data is performed to implement risk mitigation (reducing risk of fraudulent/underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. 3, 5, and 7), and but for the user interface (which is a generic computing element), this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as via human evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or with the aid of pen and paper. In addition, the “posting” step may be considered insignificant extra solution activity which, as noted above, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites additional elements directed to a data integration module, metric generator having a logic, executed by a processor, user interface [to present, view, post output] and remote computing device. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, even if the collect, present, collecting, receiving, and posting steps are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites additional elements directed to a data integration module, metric generator having a logic, executed by a processor, user interface [to present, view, post output] and remote computing device. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, even if the collect, present, collecting, receiving, and posting steps are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and such extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted by the CAFC with respect to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Regarding the user interface, see, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-18 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further steps/details that, with the exception of the additional elements in claims 2, 7-8, and 16 (which are addressed below), fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that describe further details or steps considered fundamental economic principles or practices, such as risk mitigation (e.g., reducing risk of fraudulent or underperforming organizations, Spec. at pars. [0003], [0005], and [0007]) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
With respect to dependent claims 2, 7, and 16, the real-time alert module (claims 2 and 16) and weight assignment module (claim 7) have been evaluated as additional elements, however under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these elements amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), which in insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to dependent claim 8, the AI-based data analysis engine has been evaluated as an additional element, however the use of artificial intelligence is recited at a high level of generality and has not been shown to improve the system, the generically recited data analysis engine, or any technology or otherwise integrate the claim into a practical application. Under Step 2B, such high level use of artificial intelligence (including for pattern identification/recognition) is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which does not add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Ryu et al, US 2016/0239808 (par. 53: “a well-known artificial intelligence algorithm may be used to determine an event or location to be recommended to the first or second user”). See also, Newman et al., US 2007/0043611 (par. 14: “any conventional self-learning, artificial intelligence, or automation technique can be utilized to make any useful recommendation”). See also, Ronnau, US Patent No. 10,129,716 (col. 28, lines 38-40: “Neural networks are a structural form of artificial intelligence that are commonly applied to pattern recognition problems”). Therefore, AI-based data analysis engine for identifying patterns as recited in claim 8 fails to add significantly more to the claim.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1-18 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art of record, Lingwood et al. (US 2003/0033233), is directed to features for evaluating an organization’s level of self-reporting. The prior art of record teaches several limitations of independent claim 1 including, for example: collect and aggregate data from a plurality of data sources; wherein each data source is assigned a specific weight via a weighing process based on a set of predefined rules (Lingwood at par. 44: different sources of reporting by the organization may receive different weights), generate an evaluation metric for assessing an organization based on data received for the organization (Lingwood at par. 27: as part of the evaluation process, one or more persons, referred to as scorers, examine 100 all relevant available sources of reporting by the organization and complete), and an overall rating for the organization (Lingwood at claim 17: assessment includes an overall rating of the organization's level). However, Lingwood and the other prior art references of record do not teach or render obvious the claimed system for evaluating organizations seeking funding on an online platform, comprising: a data integration module configured to collect and aggregate data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the plurality of data sources includes a donor star rating, a photo upload frequency, routine activity updates, financial reporting, and a response time to donor inquiries; wherein each data source is assigned a specific weight via a weighing process based on a set of predefined rules, the weighting process being dynamically adjustable based on real-time data updates; a metric generator configured to process the weighted data from the data integration module and generate an evaluation metric for assessing an organization based on data received for the organization; wherein the organization is a remote computing device configured receive information and send information; a user interface configured to present the rating of the organization, wherein the user interface allows a donor to view the rating of the organization; wherein the metric generator having a logic, that when executed by a processor causes the following: collecting data from the plurality of sources via the data integration module; averaging a number of donor star ratings received by the system; assigning a first rating to the number of donor star ratings; determining a frequency of image files received by the system from the organization; assigning a second rating to the frequency of image files received; receiving a donor inquiry and sending the inquiry to the organization; determining a response time of the organization when an input is received from the organization; assigning a third rating to the response time; receiving a routine activity update from the organization; determining a frequency of the routing activity update and assigning a fourth rating to the routing activity update; sending a financial reporting section to the organization; receiving the financial reporting section completed from the organization and determining a duration until the system received the completed financial reporting section; assigning a fifth rating to the duration; incorporating the first through fifth ratings in an overall rating for the organization; posting the overall rating on the user interface, as recited by independent claim 1, thereby rendering independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-18 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-18 are not in condition for allowance, however, because the claims stand rejected under 35 USC §101, §112(a), and §112(b) as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lingwood et al. (US 2003/0033233): discloses features for evaluating an organization’s level of self-reporting based on examination of information from multiple sources/scorers (par. 27), weighted scores (par. 43), overall rating (claim 17), and transparent reporting (par. 4).
Sobani et al. (US 2015/0006366): discloses features or automated online allocation of donations, including ratings for charities based on performance, indexes, votes and by frequency/number or transactions, overhead/total/mean values (par. 282).
Rinker (US 2009/0112699): discloses a donor affinity ranking system, including measuring and reporting metrics such as donor loyalty and satisfaction (par. 9) and scores assigned to charitable organizations such as a satisfaction score, donor delight score, renewal score, and recommended score (par. 75), and real-time delivery of customized reports to clients (pars. 9 and 63).
L. Zhang, X. Zhang, F. Cheng, X. Sun and H. Zhao, "Personalized Recommendation for Crowdfunding Platform: A Multi-objective Approach," 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Wellington, New Zealand, 2019, pp. 3316-3324: discloses features for evaluating crowdfunding projects and providing metrics pursuant to providing recommendations related thereto.
J. V. Dirisam, D. Bein and A. Verma, "Predictive Analytics of Donors in crowdfunding platforms: A case study on Donorschoose.org," 2021 IEEE 11th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), NV, USA, 2021, pp. 0834-0838: discloses the application of machine learning algorithms for analyzing donor behavior in the context of crowdfunding projects, such as by applying ML and/or deep learning algorithms to a donor and project dataset that after cleansing of the datasets.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
01/17/2026