DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 11/6/25 and IDS filed on 1/16/26. Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot due to amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “integrating, by the at least one processor, a client computing system with a computing production environment”) that necessitates reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Examiner’s Notes
Prior art of record include US 20040054610 A1 (Amstutz) disclosing monetaire wealth management platform, US 20130117196 A1 (Fuad) disclosing contract compliance system and US 20030093352 A1 (Muralidhar) disclosing evaluating financial trading strategies and portfolios.
Amstutz, Fuad and Muralidhar, individually or in combination, do not teach,
automatically initiating electronically, via at least one from among an asynchronous initiation and a synchronous initiation, by the at least one processor in real-time, at least one allocation action comprising a redemption action occurring in a reverse order of priority, wherein the at least one allocation action is based on the at least one rule and the at least one client information.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 recite a process (claims 1-9), an apparatus (claims 10-18) and an article of manufacture (claims 19-20. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 10 is addressed (from claims 1, 10 and 19). (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
the computing device comprising:
a processor;
a memory; and
a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
integrate a client computing system with a computing production environment;
retrieve, via an application programming interface, at least one client information of at least one client;
generate a software code that implements at least one rule based on at least one predetermined criterion related to the at least one client information, wherein the at least one rule relates to an allocation rule that corresponds to the at least one client;
perform at least one software test action comprising an internal user acceptance testing (UAT) software testing action in a computing software development environment that tests the at least one rule;
analyze the at least one software test action to identify defects;
modify the at least one rule to correct the identified defects;
perform, upon a predetermined successful completion of the internal UAT software testing action, a co-testing of the at least one software test action with the at least one client information in the integrated client computing system for validation that the at least one rule is operating without defects; and
automatically initiate electronically, via at least one from among an asynchronous initiation and a synchronous initiation, in real-time, at least one allocation action comprising a redemption action occurring in a reverse order of priority, wherein the at least one allocation action is based on the at least one rule and the at least one client information.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“the computing device comprising”, “a processor”, “a memory” and “a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “computing device comprising”, “processor”, “memory” and “communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured“ are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
“integrate a client computing system with a computing production environment”. This is general linking as “integrate a client computing system with a computing production environment” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“via an application programming interface”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “application programming interface“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“[…] tests the at least one rule”. This is no more than “apply it” as “tests the at least one rule“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“generate a software code that implements […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “generate a software code that implements“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“perform at least one software test action comprising an internal user acceptance testing (UAT) software testing action in a computing software development environment […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “perform at least one software test action comprising an internal user acceptance testing (UAT) software testing action in a computing software development environment“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“analyze the at least one software test action to identify defects”. This is no more than “apply it” as “analyze the at least one software test action to identify defects“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“perform, upon a predetermined successful completion of the internal UAT software testing action, a co-testing of the at least one software test action” and “in the integrated client computing system”. This is no more than “apply it” as “perform, upon a predetermined successful completion of the internal UAT software testing action, a co-testing of the at least one software test action“ and the “integrated client computing system” are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
“automatically [initiate] electronically […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [initiate] electronically“ is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2, 11 and 20 recited “performing, by the at least one processor, the co-testing of a predetermined minimum amount of data in the integrated client computing system for the validation”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“performing, by the at least one processor, the co-testing of a predetermined minimum amount of data in the integrated client computing system […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “performing, by the at least one processor, the co-testing of a predetermined minimum amount of data in the integrated client computing system” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 4 and 13 recited “automatically generating, by the at least one processor, at least one log for each of the initiated at least one allocation action, the at least one log including the at least one client information, the at least one rule, and the at least one allocation action”, “associating, by the at least one processor, the at least one log with the corresponding at least one client” and “persisting, by the at least one processor, the at least one log together with the association in a repository”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically generating, by the at least one processor, at least one log […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as automatically generating, by the at least one processor, at least one log” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“persisting, by the at least one processor, the at least one log together with the association in a repository”. This is no more than “apply it” as “persisting, by the at least one processor, the at least one log together with the association in a repository” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 5 and 14 recited “automatically generating, by the at least one processor in real-time, a notification for each of the initiated at least one allocation action, the notification including information that relates to the at least one rule, and the at least one allocation action” and “transmitting, by the at least one processor, the notification to the corresponding at least one client”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically [generating], by the at least one processor, […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [generating], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“transmitting, by the at least one processor, the notification to the corresponding at least one client”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting, by the at least one processor, the notification to the corresponding at least one client” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 6 and 15 recited “automatically determining, by the at least one processor, at least one error condition when the at least one allocation action is not successfully initiated”, “generating, by the at least one processor, an alert for each of the at least one error condition, the alert including information that relates to the at least one allocation action and the at least one error condition”, and “transmitting, by the at least one processor, the alert to at least one responsible party”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically [determining], by the at least one processor, […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [determining], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“transmitting, by the at least one processor, the alert to at least one responsible party”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting, by the at least one processor, the alert to at least one responsible party” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 7 and 16 recited “automatically determining, by the at least one processor based on at least one predetermined resolution guideline, at least one resolution action for each of the at least one error condition” and “automatically initiating, by the at least one processor, the at least one resolution action to resolve the corresponding at least one error condition”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically [determining], by the at least one processor […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [determining], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“automatically [initiating], by the at least one processor, […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [initiating], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 8 and 17 recited “automatically determining, by the at least one processor, a severity level for each of the at least one error condition according to a predetermined severity guideline”, “ranking, by the at least one processor, the at least one error condition based on the severity level” and “automatically initiating, by the at least one processor, the at least one resolution action based on a result of the ranking, wherein the severity level is automatically determined by using information that relates to the at least one allocation action and the at least one error condition”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically [determining], by the at least one processor, […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [determining], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“automatically [initiating], by the at least one processor, […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [initiating], by the at least one processor” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 9 and 18 recited “wherein the at least one allocation action includes an equal and offsetting action that is scheduled for a predetermined time, the predetermined time including a future time when the at least one allocation action is automatically initiated”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“[… one allocation action is] automatically [initiated]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “automatically [initiated]” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of rule based validation and management of an allocation transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 3 and 12 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
March 23, 2026