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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12,2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Claims:
Regarding 102/103: Novelty
After careful re-search and re-examination, the Examiner maintains the claims are novel/non-obvious as the Examiner noted on January 2, 2025 Office Action.
Regarding 101: Patent Eligible Subject Matter
After careful examination and consultation, the Examiner maintains the rejection of February 12, 2026 for several reasons, as discussed below:
First, the claims are vague in their clarification. The claims discloses, “one or more computation models” without clarifying what the model(s) is/are that are generating the information.
Second, merely discussing how the computational model is generated is not enough for In Re Dejardins in discussing the details of it. For example, is this AI? Which aspects of AI is involved and how does it all work together? How is the AI improved? Lastly, by not discussing this information, the Examiner fails to find anything of value related to the prong of Significantly More/Practical Application. There needs to be more within the claims of a solution to a technical problem instead of merely describing the generation of the model.
,
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 and 21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within a mental process and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…processor…marketing budget allocation engine…user interface…computational model…programming (i.e. mixed integer) ”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, and 17-19 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 8, and 15 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…processor…graphical user interface…marketing budget allocation engine…computational model…programming (i.e. mixed integer)” these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig. 1-2 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights