DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has beentimely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 4/29/2026.
Claims 1,8-9, 16-17 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3 have been cancelled.
Claim 1-2 and 4-21 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Myers et al. (US 11,682,486) and Korpman et al. (US 2023/0252020) teach a system. Myers et al. and Korpman et al. do not teach “cause a client computing
device to display results of a resource allocation optimization analysis in a resource
allocation optimization interface...
...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0001]-[0002]) that through innovation many problems associated with the obtaining and use of HEDIS performance data can been solved by. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through resource allocation optimization using the steps of “displaying data, receiving data, receiving data, receiving data, determining data structure subsets, generating benchmarks and scores, performing analysis, generating annotations, displaying annotations, monitoring data, re-allocation and updating allocate,” etc. Applicant’s method/computer readable medium/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “resource allocation optimization,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0003]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-21 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “displaying data, receiving data, receiving data, receiving data, determining data structure subsets, generating benchmarks and scores, performing analysis, generating annotations, displaying annotations, monitoring data, re-allocation and updating allocate,” etc., that is “resource allocation optimization,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions). Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-21 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers (Applicant’s Specification [0058]-[0080]), etc.) to perform steps of “displaying data, receiving data, receiving data, receiving data, determining data structure subsets, generating benchmarks and scores, performing analysis, generating annotations, displaying annotations, monitoring data, re-allocation and updating allocate,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-21 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0058]-[0080], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers,” etc. to perform the functions of “displaying data, receiving data, receiving data, receiving data, determining data structure subsets, generating benchmarks and scores, performing analysis, generating annotations, displaying annotations, monitoring data, re-allocation and updating allocate,” etc. The recited “computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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 conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-21 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-8, 10-16 and 18-21 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-16 and 18-21 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-16 and 18-21 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 9 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/29/2026 with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 4/29/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/29/2026 with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 1/29/2026 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “monitoring the plurality of member data structures for updates; responsive to detecting an update to at least one automatically re-performing the resource allocation optimization analysis by re-determining, for each measure data structure, the compliant member data structure subset, the optimization score, and the minimum number or combination of measures; and updating the resource allocation optimization interface based at least in part on the re- determined optimization scores and the re-determined minimum number or combination of measures.” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “monitoring the plurality of member data structures for updates; responsive to detecting an update to at least one automatically re-performing the resource allocation optimization analysis by re-determining, for each measure data structure, the compliant member data structure subset, the optimization score, and the minimum number or combination of measures; and updating the resource allocation optimization interface based at least in part on the re- determined optimization scores and the re-determined minimum number or combination of measures,” are abstract computational step(s) that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “computing entities, processing elements, memories, network interfaces, transmitters, displays, keypads, receivers” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 23
Appellant’s claims are not analogous to Example 23 as Appellant’s claims are not directed to a graphical user interface for relocating obscured textual information. Appellant’s claims are directed to resource allocation optimization without more. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 40
Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 40 as Applicant’s claims are not directed to improvements in collecting traffic data. Applicants’ claims do not provide a specific improvement over prior systems in network monitoring. Applicant’s claims are directed to resource allocation optimization without more. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Technical Solution
Applicant’s claims do not provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. The mere application of generic computer components that are recited at a high degree of generality to an abstract idea does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. Additionally, simply adding insignificant data gathering steps that are tied to another technical field does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology.
The claims are not directed to any technological solution other than computer data processing of healthcare data. As described above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea such as “an idea of itself” in Alice related to mental processes and a certain method of organizing human interactions. This abstract idea is only generally linked to a particular technological environment by reciting the generic computer components that are well known in the art as acknowledged by Applicant’s specification.
101 vs 103
The inquiries for subject matter eligibility and obviousness are separate inquiries, each standing on its own. A unique abstract idea is still an abstract idea decoupled for 102 and 103 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights