DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 15, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are pending.
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 steps that amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computing device. See Remarks pp. 16-17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite the use of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants. The abstract idea is not rooted in computer technology because computers are not required to make the determination and/or perform the resource allocation.
The Applicant additionally contends that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claims provide a practical application of any recited abstract idea. See Remarks p. 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements outside the scope of the identified abstract idea of performing resource allocation based on a determination that transactions at first merchants are greater than transactions at second merchants merely amount to generic computer hardware. As indicated in the paragraph, above, the claims do not recite an improvement in computer technology.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 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) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 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 during the event time window”), 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;” “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
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
Prosecution Insights