DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on August 5, 2026, for the application with serial number 17/935,586.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on July 22, 2026, in which proposed amendments were discussed with respect to the outstanding subject matter eligibility rejection.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §101 Rejection
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computing device. See Remarks p. 16. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not recite any apparent improvement to the functioning of a computer as a tool, such as increased speed or efficiency. Instead, the claims recite a method that could be performed mentally or on paper by a human being. However, a generic computer is recited as a tool for implementing the process. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, segmenting basket data does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computing device. Correlating data does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computing device.
The Applicant further contends that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. See Remarks p. 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the rejection, below, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants. Receiving data is not a practical application of the recited abstract idea; contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “determining . . . the first transactions occurring at the first merchants are greater than the second transactions occurring at the second merchants during the event time window; in response to the determining, performing . . . a resource allocation action associated with the first merchants and the second merchants”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “requesting . . . basket data;” “receiving . . . the basket data;” “receiving . . . geospatial data and temporal data;” “segmenting . . . the basket data;” “correlating . . . the basket data across [ ] merchants;” “extracting . . . consumer spending behavior;” “generating . . . a share of wallet model;” “outputting . . . one or more trends in the consumer spending behavior;” “receiving . . . an event time window;” “determining . . . a plurality of transaction time periods before [an] event associated with the entity occurred and a plurality of transaction time periods after the event associated with the entity occurred;” “generating . . . a chart for display;” “determining . . . the first transactions occurring at the first merchants are greater than the second transactions occurring at the second merchants during the event time window; in response to the determining, performing . . . a resource allocation action associated with the first merchants and the second merchants;” and “displaying . . . the chart.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes inventory allocation based on predicted demand and/or sales.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a server, computing device, and user interface in independent claim 1; a processor, computer readable medium, server, computing device, and user interface in independent claim 8; and a computer readable medium, processor, server, computing device and user interface in independent claim 15). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The recited application programming interface (API) is also a generic computer software element. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a server, computing device, and user interface in independent claim 1; a processor, computer readable medium, server, computing device, and user interface in independent claim 8; and a computer readable medium, processor, server, computing device and user interface in independent claim 15) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
