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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 5/1/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13-15, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/1/2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes on Claim Interpretation
1. As discussed in the Applicant interview held on 12/11/2025, much of the terminology in the claims can be read very broadly. Examples include, but are not limited to, “resource”, “unit”, and “virtual account” (although not specifically listed in the examples in the interview summary, “unit” was specifically discussed, among other terms). Examiner has consulted the specification, in which the terms are also discussed broadly. For example, the specification states “Aspects of the present disclosure may be used in conjunction with any of a variety of resources, including, but not limited to, computing resources, physical resources, and/or financial resources, such as stocks or other instruments” ([0015]), which leaves the interpretation of terms such as “resource”, “unit”, etc. open, as they can be applied to many systems/contexts. The subsequent examples (see at least [0016]-[0020]) are merely examples and do not impose limits on the claim language (i.e. these specific limitations cannot be properly read into the claims).
2. The amendments include changing the term “additional units” to “new units”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms are being considered equivalent. Although the specification does not include the term “new units”, it does discuss examples that may represent “new units” (resource generation, dividend, etc.). However, these examples do not necessarily limit the claim scope and are discussed broadly (see above notes on broadness). Neither the disclosure nor Applicant’s remarks clearly demonstrate a significant difference in scope between “new units” and “additional units”. For example, it is unclear how a newly generated unit cannot also be an additional unit.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. For further consideration of the merits, the terms will be treated as equivalent (see 35 USC § 103 rejections, below). The element of “new units” is not considered new matter under 35 USC § 112(a), however, Applicant is advised that, should Applicant provide evidence the terms “new unit” and “additional unit” are not equivalent, this could result in additional 35 USC § 112(a) rejections being applied.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claims 8 and 14) and/or system (Claim 1), thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite:
Obtaining [aggregating, from a plurality of event data providers,] event information for an event associated with a resource, wherein the event information includes an entitlement date and a generation date for the event;
determining, based on resource information as of the entitlement date, a first quantity of units of the resource for a virtual account of a set of virtual accounts;
determining changed resource information in response to occurrence of the event, the changed resource information indicating a quantity of new units of the resource for allocation among a plurality of accounts of the set of virtual accounts;
generating, based on the first quantity of units as of the entitlement date and the quantity of new units of the resource, a participation factor metric for the virtual account;
generating, for the virtual account and based on the participation factor metric and a second quantity of units of the virtual account that were available for grant to another virtual account as of the entitlement date, a resource allocation metric of a set of resource allocation metrics;
generating, for the virtual account and based on the set of resource allocation metrics for the set of virtual accounts, a resource allocation ratio metric of a set of resource allocation ratio metrics to allocate a subpart of the quantity of new units of the resource to the virtual account; and
providing, for resource allocation of the new units of the resource resulting from the event, the set of resource allocation ratio metrics.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) in the form of analyzing and allocating resources in accounts. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for analyzing changes in and allocating resources for user accounts. Applicant’s specification was consulted and provided additional evidence regarding the commercial, business, and/or organizational use of the claimed invention (see at least [0015]; [0020]).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
at least one processor; and
memory storing executable instructions.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0056]). Furthermore, the “virtual” account used to in the recited steps is recited at a high-level of generality and only nominally and generically attempts to tie the claimed invention to a particular technological environment. It is also noted that although Claims 8 and 14 label the accounts as “virtual”, they include no additional elements that represent technical components. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 recite further elements related to the resource analysis steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 recite “generating a grant for the new units of the resource according to the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account, thereby allocating at least a part of the new units of the resource for grant to one or more other virtual accounts”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and allocation steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
Claims 3 and 16 recite “wherein: the resource information as of the entitlement date is obtained from a first data source; and the resource information as of the generation date is obtained from a second data source that is different than the first data source”, which further specifies additional steps related to the data retrieval steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite “wherein the first data source includes a snapshot of resource information for the entitlement date”, which further specifies additional steps related to the data retrieval steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “wherein obtaining event information for the event comprises aggregating event information from a plurality of data sources”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and allocation steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. These elements also appear in independent Claim 8 are therefore subject the above rejection for the independent claims.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 recite “wherein determining the changed resource information comprises: identifying, based on transaction information from a transaction data provider, a transaction for a unit of the resource; and omitting, from the determined changed resource information, the transaction for the unit of the resource”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and allocation steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
Claims 7, 13, and 20 recite “wherein generating the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account further comprises allocating at least a part of the new units of the resource corresponding to an opted-out resource unit to the virtual account”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and allocation steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the changed resource information is obtained from a second data source different than the first data source”, which further specifies additional steps related to the data retrieval steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelte et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0027382 A1) in view of Shankar (Pub. No. US 2018/0096402 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 5, 8, 14, and 18, Nelte discloses:
A system/method comprising:
at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising: (see at least Abstract)
[Claims 5, 8, and 18 only] aggregating, from a plurality of event data providers ([0046]; [0054], shows event related data (data related to the user’s investment event) being collected from a plurality of resources)
obtaining event information for an event associated with a resource, wherein the event information includes an entitlement date and a generation date for the event; ([0038]-[0040]; [0071]; etc., first account has an initial investment (event and entitlement date) and a 1 year time period, re-investing on the anniversary date (generation date), the event is an investment into an account (or re-investment after the investment period), the entitlement date is the date of the initial investment (and any re-investments after the previous event is ended), the generation date is the date the gains are generated in the account (anniversary date at the end of each investment period));
determining, based on resource information as of the entitlement date, a first quantity of units of the resource for a virtual account of a set of virtual accounts; ([0071]; [0085]; etc., at the beginning of each event (investment time period), the number of units of a resource (quantities of units, units of the resource are measured in in dollars) for an account is determined, units are determined for more than one account; [0075]; [0091], shows additional accounts can be included, more than the two in the examples)
determining changed resource information in response to occurrence of the event, the changed resource information indicating a quantity of new units of the resource for allocation among a plurality of accounts of the set of virtual accounts; ([0071]; [0085]; etc., shows changes in resources, such as gains/wins received (new/additional resources earned by the account, such as new/additional quantities of units in dollars) in response to an investment (event), the gains alter the amount of resources for the account/investment, additional monetary units earned by the account would represent new monetary units (such as profits, gains, increase in value, returns that can be further invested, see also [0037]; etc.), the new monetary units (gains, returns, etc.) are allocated to other accounts, an event occurs (money invested) and in response, resources are changed (the money invested yield gains or losses) (see also [0068]-[0072]; [0075]; [0086]; etc.); [0091], shows additional accounts can be included, more than the two in the examples)
generating, based on the first quantity of units as of the entitlement date and the quantity of new units of the resource, a participation factor metric for the virtual account; ([0071]; [0085]; [0086], based on the participation at the entitlement date (beginning of investment) and change of resources (gain, quantity of new/additional units of the resource), a participation factor metric is determined, for example, the amount of units at the entitlement date (first quantity) is $100 (at 75% participation), the change is resources is a gain of 10%, therefore the participation factor metric would be .10x.75x$100 = $7.50, $7.50 represents the total gain (positive participation, quantity of new/additional units of the resource) in the investment)
generating, for the virtual account and based on the participation factor metric and a second quantity of units of the virtual account that were available for grant to another virtual account as of the entitlement date, a resource allocation metric of a set of resource allocation metrics; ([0085], etc., the amount of units (dollars) and the participation metric determines an amount of units that are available to allocate to a second account, although there is an additional step (dividing the gain by 50% provides a second quantity of units of the virtual account that are available for grant to another virtual account) this would still read on the claims since the determination of the amount of units allocation is made using the same data, regardless of what portion is actually allocated, for each subsequent year (this will be further addressed in subsequent elements), this is performed on the entitlement date (date of the investment for the next investment period); [0087]; [0091], can also be performed between the second account and a third account (or multiple accounts) which would yield “a set of resource allocation metrics”, the set including metrics for multiple account relationships)
generating, for the virtual account and based on the set of resource allocation metrics for the set of virtual accounts, a resource allocation ratio metric of a set of resource allocation ratio metrics to allocate a subpart of the quantity of new units of the resource to the virtual account; (Fig. 5; [0086]; [0087], due to the participation cap, a new allocation ratio can be generated (the original ratio (50%) is altered), providing a different allocation of gained units between the accounts, the new “resource allocation ratio metrics” are based on the results of the previous “resource allocation metrics”; [0071]; [0085]-[0087]; [0091], “…then the first account 210 gains 75%*10%*$100=$7.50. 50% of this amount ($3.75) is transferred or credited to the second account 236 which is used as an initial investment in the second account…”, a subpart of the new/additional units (50% or $3.75) is allocated to the second account and (50% or $3.75) is allocated to (remains in) the first account (as previously applied to dependent Claims 2, 9, and 15, referred to in those claims as “a part of the new/additional units of the resource” (previously “generated resource output”))
Nelte discloses all of the above limitations. Nelte also discloses the ability to determine a resource allocation ratio metric, as shown above. Although Nelte discloses all of the necessary information and algorithms for generating this metric and its results that are used for allocating the new/additional units of the resource resulting from the event (as shown above), Nelte does not explicitly disclose providing this information. However, Shankar teaches:
providing [a] set of resource allocation ratio metrics (Fig. 6B; [0047], shows a display that provides the resource allocation ratios/percentages for each charity (comparable to an account))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Nelte so as to have included providing [a] set of resource allocation ratio metrics, as taught by Shankar.
Nelte discloses a “base” method/system allocation ratios are determined, as shown above. Shankar teaches a comparable method/system allocation ratios are determined, as shown above. Shankar also teaches an embodiment in which a set of resource allocation ratio metrics is provided to the user through a display, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of providing [a] set of resource allocation ratio metrics to Nelte could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Although Shankar does not determine the ratios in the same manner as Nelte, Shanker is used merely to show the ability to display (i.e., provide) the determined ratios. Simply providing the Nelte invention with the additional ability to provide the metrics/ratios would not teach away from or in any way destroy the processes or outcomes of the Nelte or Shankar inventions.
In regards to Claims 2, 9, and 15, Nelte discloses:
generating a grant for the new of the resource according to the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account, thereby allocating at least a part of the new of the resource for grant to one or more other virtual accounts ([0071]; [0085]-[0087]; [0091], etc., “…then the first account 210 gains 75%*10%*$100=$7.50. 50% of this amount ($3.75) is transferred or credited to the second account 236 which is used as an initial investment in the second account…”, a subpart of the new/additional units (50% or $3.75) is allocated to the second account and (50% or $3.75) is allocated to (remains in) the first account (as previously applied to dependent Claims 2, 9, and 15, referred to in those claims as “a part of the new/additional units of the resource” (previously “generated resource output”))
In regards to Claims 3 and 16, Nelte discloses:
wherein: the resource information as of the entitlement date is obtained from a first data source; and the resource information as of the generation date is obtained from a second data source that is different than the first data source (see at least [0054]; Fig. 2B, ‘resource information as of the entitlement date’ would be obtained from the accounts (first data source), ‘resource information as of the generation date’ would be obtained from the current resource allocation index module (224, also referred to as index module), which can be on an external system (second data source, “…communicating with external systems to obtain policy and/or current resource allocation information…”))
In regards to Claim 10, Nelte discloses:
wherein the changed resource information is obtained from a second data source different than the first data source (see at least [0054]; Fig. 2B, ‘changed resource information’ (such as the gains and how they will be allocated to accounts) would be obtained from the current resource allocation index module (224, also referred to as index module), which can be on an external system (second data source, “…communicating with external systems to obtain policy and/or current resource allocation information…”))
In regards to Claims 4, 11, and 17, Nelte discloses:
wherein the first data source includes a snapshot of resource information for the entitlement date (see at least [0085]-[0087], at the end of each period, the value of the resources for the accounts are calculated and this value is used for the next investment event/period, the value at the specific time (after the gain and allocations) are performed would represent a “snapshot” of the resource information used for the next entitlement date)
In regards to Claims 6, 12, and 19, Nelte discloses:
wherein determining the changed resource information comprises:
identifying, based on transaction information from a transaction data provider, a transaction for a unit of the resource; and omitting, from the determined changed resource information, the transaction for the unit of the resource ([0073], during the investment, funds can be transferred between accounts in order to avoid breaching limits, these transfers would represent transactions, the transaction can be disabled if identified as a potential breach, when these identified transactions are disabled, the funds would not be transacted into the conservative account and therefore the transaction/funds would be omitted from any resource changes in the conservative account)
In regards to Claims 7, 13, and 20, Nelte discloses:
wherein generating the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account further comprises allocating at least a part of the new units of the resource corresponding to an opted-out resource unit to the virtual account ([0071], as described above, any gains can be allocated to other accounts based on percentages, in the example provided, 50% is allocated to the second account and 50% is re-allocated (or maintained) in the first account; [0072], the remainder (50% not allocated to the second account), can be transferred to another account or to the premium budget (re-allocated to the first account, see also [0055], premium budget related to option budget))
Examiner’s Note: The term “opted-out” is recited broadly in the claims without any detail. Therefore, it is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation without reading any specific material from the disclosure, that is not covered by the claim language, into the claims. As the term is not defined in the claims, it is being interpreted as any options, decision, setting, etc. that would exclude units from being allocated. In the instant case (using the example in the reference), the 50% that is not set to be transferred would represent resource units that are “opted-out“ of the allocation at the time of resource output generation and remain in the first account, as described in the claims.
Additional Relevant Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Boes (WO 9215953 A1). Discloses the determination of allocation ratios between funds based on changes in the resources associated with the funds (see at least page 8, SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
Farrow (Pub. No. US 2006/0010053 A1). Discloses model for allocation among multiple funds and withdrawals for an account (see at least [0009]).
Halliday (WO 2023048862 A2). Discloses the allocation of funds between accounts that gain resources. Deployable funds (new units) from an event (transaction) can be allocated into related accounts (see at least [7]; [28]; [31]; [36]; [48]; [51]-[53]; [61]; [73]; [108]).
Kang et al. (KR 20190070218 A). Discloses the analysis of accounts, profits (gains), and account resource distribution (see at least Abstract; page 5, line 42-page 6, line 19; page 9, line 22-page 10, line 11).
Papa et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0180443 A1). Discloses the determination of and displays percentage allocations (see at least [0008]; [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant fails to explain how/why “such event handling and corresponding processing of changed resource information cannot be said to recite anything akin to "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations”. The claims merely monitor events, determine resources changes, and processes allocations. Applicant does not explain why this would not be akin to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions).
Applicant asserts “nor does the Office Action specifically indicate which of the claim elements are believed to recite the purported abstract idea”, however, the above rejection clearly states “The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of commercial or legal interactions”.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims elements have been analyzed individually and as a whole.
Applicant argues that the disclosure and claims provide sufficient background. Examiner disagrees. For example, the paragraphs that Applicant cites in the specification merely provide assertions regarding existing problems, solutions, and improvements. These assertions, themselves do not provide background to demonstrate that these problems, solutions, and improvements exist. There is not material demonstrating that the alleged problems exist, other than Applicant stating that they will. Adrenally, there is not material demonstrating how Applicant’s alleged solution addresses these problems in a meaningful manner that provides the alleged improvement, other than Applicant stating that they does. The disclosure describes applicant’s claimed invention, but does not how/why it provides the alleged improvement over conventional methods/systems and solves the alleged problem in a meaningful manner.
Applicant argues that they “introduce” outturn-based resource allocation. However, Applicant merely labels the process as “outturn-based resource allocation” and asserts that it is new, but does not clearly explain how/why this process would be significantly different than prior systems/methods. It is not clear that “outturn-based resource allocation” is a new method/system or merely a label applied by Applicant.
Regarding “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the specification would inform POSITA of Applicant’s intentions to provide a solution, but does not provide the detail to allow them to recognize how the alleged improvement is achieved in a meaningful manner beyond the abstract ideas. Merely recognizing that Applicant is asserting an improvement does not provide POSITA with sufficient information to recognize a practical application. The “technical explanations” are provided at ahigh level of generality and do not include the detail to demonstrate a practical application, improvement, etc. For example, reducing redundant processes and improving system operations are broad concepts and specifics indicating how these alleged improvements are achieved are not provided.
Step 2B:
As stated in the previous office action, It is noted that the rejections are not based on, nor do they include any references to, well-understood, routine, and conventional elements at this time (or in the previous office action). Additionally, Applicant fails to explain (and/ or provide any evidence to demonstrate) why the claimed invention/elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional and/or why they represent a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components.
Applicant argues that the burden is being shifted to Applicant. However, if Applicant wishes to invoke a Berkheimer analysis, it would require an explanation of why it is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. As explained, Examiner has not relied on this analysis at this time, therefore a factual analysis has not been made in in regards to Berkheimer, therefore no Berkheimer evidence is necessary. This does not inherently render the claims as unconventional.
However, in order to forward prosecution, Examiner identifies the following to demonstrate that the claimed invention is well-understood, routine, or conventional:
- Nelte (as used in the above rejections and previously cited), which discloses a comparable system to Applicant’s claims, in which newly created units in an account are allocated to other related accounts (Berkheimer, under publications category).
- Halliday (previously and currently cited as Additional Relevant Prior Art), which discloses a comparable system to Applicant’s claims, in which deployable funds (new units) from an event (transaction) can be allocated into related accounts (Berkheimer, under publications category).
- Specification at [0055], [0063], etc. Applicant states that the claimed invention can be performed on a general-purpose computer and no discussion of any special-purpose equipment required (and why). Additionally, there was no material found to further indicate that the claim elements and/or steps (individually or as a whole) are not well-understood, routine, or conventional (Berkheimer, under statements by Applicant category).
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant argues that the "dollar amount" of Nelte fails to teach or suggest at least the "new units of the resource for allocation among a plurality of accounts". This is unclear because the increased dollar amounts in Nelte (such as gains, etc.) would provide new units (the additional monetary units added). The concepts of “new” and “additional” units are not mutually exclusive in this context. The added units of Nelte are both “additional” and “new”. The changed resources, such as return on investment, gains, etc. occur in response to money being invested (event). The event occurs (money invested) and in response, resources are changed (the money invested yield gains or losses). Therefore, the applied references read on the amended claims in the same manner as the previous claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 May 28, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights