DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated August 08, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 02, 2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-2, 13-14, and 20 have been amended. Claim 15 was previously cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1–14 and 16–22 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1–14 and 16–22 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.
In sum, claims 1–14 and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 13-14 and 16-19), a machine (claims 1-12 and 21-22), and manufacture (claim 20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining a resource availability based on a given resource reallocation request from the user by:
train a resource model on batched historical data sets, the batched historical data sets including data records representing at least one of recurring or non-recurring resource allocations, wherein the resource model determines a plurality of threshold values representing different ranges of projected resource availability values based on the batched historical data sets;
store the resource model as a current resource model, wherein the current resource model can generate a range of projected resource availability values, wherein the current resource model encapsulates the batched historical data sets;
execute a performance monitoring operation including processing a validation data set to determine whether the current resource model provides a validation output within an output threshold time;
when a validation output time exceeds the output threshold time, identify another resource model for storing as the current resource model;
receive a signal representing a resource allocation request based on at least one of the activation signal or a signal representing a pending resource allocation value via a proximity-based communication
channel at a vendor location;
determine and continuously update a projected resource availability corresponding with the resource allocation request and a second data set including at least one data record unrepresented in batched historical data sets and collected after the batched historical data sets are combined and processed, wherein the second data set and the batched historical data sets are retrieved and updated; and
generate an output signal to display, at the user interface, a nontextual user interface element representing the projected resource availability corresponding with the resource allocation request, the non-textual user interface element having a first visual appearance indicative of a first range and a second visual appearance indicative of a second range, wherein the non-textual user interface element transitions from displaying the first visual appearance to the second visual appearance when the resource allocation request signal provides a different pending resource allocation value and the projected resource availability corresponding to the resource allocation request enters the range corresponding to the second visual appearance.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., determining a resource availability based on a given resource reallocation request from the user).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claims 13 and 20 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those claims as was applied to claim 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “memory” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0013] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–12, 14, 16–19, and 21-22 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 14 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the output signal is provided within a certain time period from when the resource allocation has been received. Dependent claims 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the resource allocation request signal includes a signal that has a certain value from a POS device. Dependent claims 4 and 16 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the resource allocation request includes detection of a notification from a client device that corresponds to a particular targeted resource allocation request. Dependent claims 5 and 17 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe use of a sliding element on a user device that is made on a client device. Dependent claims 6 and 18 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the resource allocation request is based on a detection of a series of resource allocations within a certain time period. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the second data set includes pre-authorization requests that were unrepresented. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes what the resource model is (“a plurality of discrete machine learning models…”). Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes retraining the machine learning model when a sub-optimal projected resource availability output is identified. Dependent claims 10 and 19 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe there is a prospective time for determining the projected resource availability. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the initial allocation request is associated with a first user identifier and that the second data set represents allocations associated with a second user identifier. Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes using haptic feedback at a client device that represents the output signal for displaying the projected resource availability. Dependent claim 21 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes the use of generic user interface elements to provide alerts to the user. This limitation does not provide detail as to what these user interface elements actually comprise. Dependent claim 22 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes the use of generic user interface elements such as a ”visual gradient” that is providing data to the user.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on March 02, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “…[t]he claimed system is configured to execute a performance monitoring operation including processing a validation data set, and determining whether the current resource model provides a validation output within an output threshold time, and if necessary, identifying another resource model which can provide a more timely output. For at least these reasons, as would be understood by the skilled person, claims 1-14 and 16-22 do not recite a method of organizing human activity. (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). However, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., determining a resource availability based on a given resource reallocation request from the user). Financial resources are being allocated based on user input. This is well within the realm of the category of certain methods of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant next argues that “[n]otwithstanding the above, even if Prong 1 is not satisfied, it is clear that the combination of the elements integrates the approach into a practical application. The proposed computer system describes a specific manner of monitoring the performance of a model and when necessary identifying another model such as an updated or different model which can be executed within the required time threshold.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). However, the identified abstract idea to which the claims are directed do not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). No specialized hardware or software is being used here to carry out the functions recited in the claim limitations. There are no interactive features as part of this invention with the new amended claims. Instead, the new amendments describes systems that generically gather information in “monitoring the performance of a model…” This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant finally argues that “…The specifically claimed architecture provides technical improvements to and addresses technical challenges with the resource model itself, namely ensuring its timely execution. Similar to In re Desjardins, the claimed subject matter integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical computer architecture and impose meaningful limits on the claim.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). However, merely training and updating a resource model based on gathered data is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696