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 9/12/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13-15, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 associated with the event, the changed resource information indicating a quantity of additional units of the resource;
generating, based on the first quantity of units as of the entitlement date and the quantity of additional 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 additional units of the resource to the virtual account; and
providing, for resource allocation of the additional 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 additional units of the resource according to the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account, thereby allocating at least a part of the additional 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 additional 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
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 8, 5, and 18 only] aggregating, from a plurality of event data providers ([0046]; [0054], shows event related data (data related to the users 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 associated with the event, the changed resource information indicating a quantity of additional units of the resource ([0071]; [0085]; etc., shows changes in resources, such as gains/wins received (additional resources earned by the account, such as additional quantities of units in dollars) from the investment (event), the gains alter the amount of resources for the account/investment)
generating, based on the first quantity of units as of the entitlement date and the quantity of additional 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 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 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 additional 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 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 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 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 additional units of the resource according to the resource allocation ratio metric for the virtual account, thereby allocating at least a part of the additional units 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 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 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 additional 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 (see at least [51]; [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 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Step 2A, Prong One: Applicant asserts that “the claimed event processing and subsequent resource allocation among a set of virtual accounts 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", but does not provide any explanation or evidence to demonstrate why this would be true. Additionally, Applicant asserts that “nor does the Office Action indicate which of the enumerated examples the claims are believed to recite.” Applicant is reminded that the claims do not need to explicitly recite one of the examples to recite a comparable abstract idea (and, as stated above, Applicant fails to explain why the claims cannot recite the identified abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements other than those addressed in the rejections, but merely recite the claim language and does not clearly identify the alleged additional features and/or how they provide a practical application (including when considered as a whole).
Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to an improvement in the technical field. However, the citations to the specification merely provide assertions as to problems in the art and benefits provided by the claimed invention. This material does not provide sufficient background or evidence to demonstrate that there is a need in the art and/or how the claimed invention would address this need in a meaningful way. There is not sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention provides a significant improvement to field of art or technology used.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Step 2B: 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.
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §112:
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments.
III. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant’s remarks are drawn to the newly provided claim material and are therefore moot in view of the newly provided prior art rejections, citations, and/or explanations, provided above.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant fails to explain or demonstrate how/why “dollar amounts” would be conceptually different than “quantity of units”. One of ordinary skill would understand that dollar amounts represent a quantity of units (units of currency, units of dollars, etc.). See also, Applicant’s specification at [0015], stating “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.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this open-ended example, including “financial resources”, could include monetary resources, such as currency (dollars).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 October 29, 2025
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629