DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/23/2025 has been entered.
1) Independent claims: 1, 11 and 21.
2) Dependent claims: none.
Claim Status
Claim status: claims 1-30 are pending.
1) Method1: 1 -10, and
2) Article1: 11-20, and
2) Apparatus1: 21-30.
The pending claims comprise 3 groups of similar scope.
As of 10/23/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
[1] defining a disease diagnosis for a patient;
[2] applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations
associated with the disease diagnosis;
[3] obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, and
[4] processing each of a plurality of funding claims to determine a status of each of the plurality of funding claims as one or more of:
[i] submitted but not yet approved;
[ii] approved but not yet paid; and
[3i] paid.
Note: numerals [1]-[4] are added to the beginning of each step for reference purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) In independent claims 1, 11 and 21, the relationship between the last two steps are vague because step [3] “obtaining funding” for the diagnoses from the charitable organization but the next step [4] calls for “processing each of the funding claims” which is vague because step [4] should happen before step [3]. Normally, the claim is processed and then if the claim is approved then funding the claim is next. Reverse the order of steps [3]-[4] is recommended to improve clarity and overcome the rejection.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) a method of organizing human activities,
(2) an idea of itself, or
(3) a mathematical relationship or formula.
In details:
(1) Certain method of organizing human activities --
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-30:
Claim category:
1) Process/Method1: 1-10.
2) Article1: 11-20, and
2) Machine/System1 & 2: 21-30.
2) Analysis:
Method1: claims 1-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising steps of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; processing the funding claims, and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis. (Step 1: yes).
Article1: claims 11-20 are directed to a computer program product having instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor the perform operations for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; processing the funding claims, and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis. (Step 1: yes).
System1: claims 21-30 are directed to a system for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; processing the funding claims, and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis. (Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims 1-30 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; processing the funding claims, and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, is a certain well known business method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization which is a method of organizing human activities and is an abstract idea. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the use of at least one processor.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] defining a disease diagnosis (data) . Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution
Activity (IESA).
[2] applying the patient for funding … business/human activity,
[3] processing the claims for funding… business/human activity.
[4] obtaining funding from charitable organization. Business/human activity.
Step [1] is data gathering and/or data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[4] are well known business method (human activities) for applying an application for assistance, processing the claim, and obtaining funding from a charitable organization.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[3] above.
Step [1] is data gathering and/or data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[4] are well known business method (human activities) for applying an application for assistance, processing the claim, and obtaining funding from a charitable organization.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis; and obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2]-[4], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or method claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the steps of obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the type of organization, i.e. a charity and defined by, these further limits the abstract idea of the analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4, 6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the source or type of funding, this further limits the abstract idea of the funding features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 4, 6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the disease diagnosis, this further limits the abstract idea of the diagnosis features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 6 and 8 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the funding applying features, this further limits the abstract idea of the funding applying features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 6 and 8 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the database defining funding features, this further limits the abstract idea of the database, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 9-10 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the funding applying features, this further limits the abstract idea of the funding applying features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 9-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Claims 11-30 are the article and system claims of method claim 1-10 and have similar limitation as in claims 1-10.
Therefore, claims 1-30 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-7, and 10 (method1) and respectively 11-17, and 20 (article) and respectively 21-27 and 30 (system1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) ARTUSY ET AL. US 2023/0.317.239, and
(2) LEROUX ET AL. US 2005/0.021.426.
As for independent claim 1, 11, and 21, PERRY discloses a computer-implemented method, article, and system for funding a patient assistance program, executed on a computing device, comprising:
[1] defining a disease diagnosis for a patient;
{See [0034…managing funding of healthcare procedures… receiving a request for medical care directly from a patient, …, information about a procedure needed by a patient unable to pay for the procedure ...]}
{see Fig. 12
PNG
media_image1.png
668
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[2] applying the patient for funding via one or more charitable organizations
associated with the disease diagnosis; and
{see Fig. 10 and 11, and respective [0057 …
PNG
media_image3.png
432
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
349
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
292
475
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[3] obtaining funding from the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis.
{See [0034 … providing funding from those donors to …] teaches providing funding from those donors to the healthcare provider for the carry out of the procedure on the patient.}
[4] processing each of a plurality of funding claims to complete each of the plurality of funding claims as one or more of: [i] submitted but not yet approved;
[ii] approved but not yet paid; and [3i] paid.
{see [0061 … In process flows 6, the logic module generates a real-time message… The back-end server transmits, in process flow 7, …, alerting them of a need/match, and requesting a real-time response of accepting or declining the patient….],
[0062 … In process flow 12, upon receipt of approval for pledge of medical payment from a donor, … to proceed for further actions.”]
[0066 The provider system also sends a final report summing the total bill for the treatment to the donor and to the back-end system. Upon completion of the donor’s review, in process flow 18, the donor system signals to the back-end server that the designated funds should be distributed.]}
As shown in [0066], the donor system shows that the claim is approved but not yet paid and signals the back-end server to pay or distribute the claim.
ARTUSY ET AL. fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses the feature of “to determine a status of the claim in the “processing step.”.
LEROUX ET AL. is cited to teach a processing of a claim (invoice) and determining a current status of the claim, see [0006] below, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, “Status: “Paid”, “approved,” or “Open,” etc.,
PNG
media_image6.png
281
477
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
337
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Funding system of ARTUSY ET AL. by including a claim processing status determination feature as taught by LEROUX ET AL. for determining the processed claim status to know the current status of the processing, see [0006] or Fig. 5 above. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
PNG
media_image8.png
271
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
248
475
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In [0065-0066] and [0093], ARTUSY ET AL. teaches processing each of the claim (request) in process flows 16 and 17, and reviewing the request, upon completion of the donor’s review, in process flow 18, the donor system signals to the back-end server that the designated funds should be distributed. ARTUSY ET AL. does not explicitly discloses the intended use of the processing of the request (claim) which is determine a status of the funding claims, however, in view of the
As for dependent claim 2 (part of 1 above) and respective 12 (part of 11 above), and respective 22 (part of 21 above), which deals with a type of organization, a charity, or philanthropic entity, this is taught in ARTUSY ET AL. [0043 … Corporate giving programs, …institutional donors, …], [0047 … philanthropic communities, …], [0079… types of donors, …, public charities, charitable trusts, non-profit organizations, etc.,..]}
As for dependent claim 3 (part of 1 above) and respective 13 (part of 11 above), and respective 23 (part of 21 above), which deals with data about the charitable organization are defined in a database, this is taught in [0080] and Fig. 13, Fig. 14, Fig. 15A, “the curated donor database.”
PNG
media_image10.png
422
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As for dependent claim 4 (part of 1 above) and respective 14 (part of 11 above), and respective 24 (part of 21 above), which deals with the source of funding, treatment-based funding, this is taught in [0035 … patients who are in pre-scheduled surgery associated with acute conditions…], and [0032]
PNG
media_image11.png
218
479
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As for dependent claim 5 (part of 1 above) and respective 15 (part of 11 above), and respective 25 (part of 21 above), which deals defining the medical condition parameters, this is taught in ARTUSY ET AL. [0032].
PNG
media_image12.png
215
486
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
42
500
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
156
498
media_image14.png
Greyscale
As for dependent claim 6 (part of 1 above) and respective 16 (part of 11 above), and respective 26 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding automatically, this is taught in ARTUSY ET AL. [0034].
PNG
media_image15.png
303
499
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As for dependent claim 7 (part of 1 above) and respective 17 (part of 11 above), and respective 27 (part of 21 above), which deals with data about the charitable organization are defined in a database, this is taught in ARTUSY ET AL. [0034 …wherein the donor computer system maintains donor records indicating types of procedures a donor supports and will fund,…, and providing funding from those donors to the healthcare provider.”] and Fig. 14, “1224, Donor Dataset”, “1226 donor donation criteria,” and “1260 Donor query module.”
As for dependent claim 10 (part of 1 above) and respective 20 (part of 11 above), and respective 30 (part of 21 above), which deals with funding partially the medical expenses associated with the disease, this is taught in ARTUSY ET AL. [0040].
PNG
media_image16.png
549
500
media_image16.png
Greyscale
which shows the funding may be partially due to eligibility conditions.
Dependent claim(s) 8-9 (part of 1 above) and respective 18-19 (part of 11 above) and 28-29 (part of 21 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTUSY ET AL. /LEROUX ET AL. as applied to claims 1-7, and respective 11-17, and 21-27 above, and further in view of (3) PERRY, US 2013/0.132.106.
The teaching of ARTUSY ET AL. /LEROUX ET AL. is cited above. As for dependent claim 8 (part of 1 above) and respective 18 (part of 11 above), and respective 28 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application, PERRY teaches the applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application, see claim 5, claim 5, “computer-implemented method … generating … request application comprises populating … request application.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Funding system of ARTUSY ET AL./LEROUX ET AL. by applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application as taught by PERRY on claim 5.
As for dependent claim 9 (part of 1 above) and respective 19 (part of 11 above), and respective 29 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application, this is taught in PERRY claim 5, “computer-implemented method … generating … request application comprises populating … request application” and {see [0001 … charitable organizations may offer safety net and patient assistance programs …health care areas including, for example, cardiology, hematology, neurology, …]} The patient assistance programs in the cardiology area would define the cardiology diagnosis for the patience.
PNG
media_image17.png
284
674
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s comment that the claim is not abstract and integrates into a practical application is not persuasive.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
(2) 103 Rejection:
Applicant’s amendment triggers new citations and new references to address the amended features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689