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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 24, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on August 24, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 9 and 12 remaining canceled. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 15. Thus claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “… when executed by the central server, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: … in response to determining that the amount satisfies the threshold amount, traversing, by the central server, …; in response to identifying two or more instances of the normalized resource data across the two or more resource allocation buckets based on the traversing, removing, by the central server, …”. The claim language “by the central server” for the “traversing” and the “removing” limitations is redundant as “the central server” is already performing the “traversing” and the “removing” limitations. Recommend and/or suggest eliminating the claim language “by the central server” for the “traversing” and the “removing” limitations.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “… upon such execution, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: … identifying, by the central server, …; in response to determining that the amount satisfies the threshold amount, traversing, by the central server, …”. The claim language “by the central server” for the “identifying” and the “traversing” limitations is redundant as “the central server” is already performing the “identifying” and the “traversing” limitations. Recommend and/or suggest eliminating the claim language “by the central server” for the “identifying” and the “traversing” limitations.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts the following:
Without conceding the merits of the rejection and in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to further highlight their patent eligibility.
In the present case, the claimed solution establishes a clear interrelationship between the recited process and the specific hardware/software architecture, demonstrating a concrete technical sequence, and improvement to a technology, rather than "solution-only" functional language.
The amended claims clarify the distributed hardware architecture of the claimed solution as well as the specific hardware actors that perform the claimed operations. For example, independent Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to replace the phrase "one or more processors" with a specific distributed hardware architecture including "a central server and from a plurality of disparate point-of-sale (POS) data sources over a network".
As amended, claim 1 specifically requires a distributed hardware arrangement that includes a central server in networked communication with a plurality of disparate point-of-sale (POS) data sources. Repeated extraction and translation across these specific physical network endpoints moves the claim far beyond "a computer performing generic business functions" and anchors the method in a concrete multi-node system.
The technical problem solved by the claimed solution is how to achieve real-time data interoperability and memory footprint optimization across independently operated, heterogeneous merchant endpoints. By establishing a central server that actively interfaces with these disparate physical POS sources to extract and normalize disparate payloads via targeted API functions, the claimed architecture directly achieves a modular "plug and play" compatibility.
Because the hardware nodes work in tandem to optimize memory footprint utilization across a network of heterogeneous POS terminals, the claims improve computer technology rather than a business concept.
Under Step 2B, a relevant inquiry is whether the claim preempts the entire field of the alleged abstract idea or instead claims a specific, limited technical implementation. Amended Claim 1 is strictly bounded by specific physical hardware boundaries: data must originate from point-of-sale (POS) data sources, must be extracted over a network by a central server, must be normalized using specific API functions, and must execute a resource allocation bucket traversal to correct double-counting errors. This limited preemption footprint is an indication that the claims recite a patent-eligible, specific technological application under 35 U.S.C. § 101, rather than a broad pre-emption of an entire field.
This structural interrelationship is consistent with the patent-eligible framework in Ex parte Carmody (Appeal 2025-002843). The present claims recite a technological interrelationship between disparate, independently maintained POS data sources and a central server hub. This hardware architecture allows new merchant systems to be added to or removed from the network without reconfiguring the server's core execution routines. Under the principles established in Ex parte Carmody and MPEP § 2106.04(d), this networked system configuration integrates the process into a practical application.
The amended claims recite a set of concrete technical sequences including API normalization and closed-loop database deduplication. These features help govern data interoperability and database structure integrity.
Claim 1 also recites a concrete database error-correction routine. The specification highlights that these specific structural features provide direct, technical improvements to computer efficiency and database management. Paragraph [0023] explicitly describes a tangible improvement in hardware memory utilization.
By coupling specific distributed hardware nodes (a central server communicating with remote POS terminals) with a concrete API translation interface and an automated, graph-based memory bucket traversal routine, the amended claims do not merely recite an abstract business practice on generic computers. Instead, they recite a specific, self-healing database architecture that improves system interoperability and reduces memory utilization, satisfying Step 2A, Prong 2.
Under Step 2B, the ordered combination of extracting disparate POS datasets over a network, normalizing them via targeted API functions, and executing a memory bucket traversal to correct double-counting errors based on timestamp and user-ID matching was not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at the time of filing. Therefore, the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B, and withdrawal of the§ 101 rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims are respectfully requested.
Independent claims 15 and 20 recite features similar to those discussed above with reference to claim 1. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 15, claim 20, and their respective dependent claims for at least the reasons provided above with reference to claim 1.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240070626 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘626 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention relates to performing resource allocation consistent with resource allocation rules, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “extracting, by a central server and from a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network, available resource data in a plurality of formats, wherein the available resource data includes a set of remote user identifiers; normalizing, by the central server, the available resource data received in the plurality of formats, wherein the normalizing of the available resource data includes conversion of (i) first data having a first format and (ii) second data having a second format into a same format, and results in normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the central server, wherein normalizing the available resource data comprises identifying a type of a POS data source that transmitted the available resource data, identifying an application programmable interface (API) associated with the type of the POS data source, and generating the normalized resource data by applying one or more functions of the API to the available resource data; identifying, by the central server, a set of remote user identifiers included in the available resource data; indexing, by the central server and for each remote user identifier of the set of remote user identifiers, the normalized resource data that is attributed to the remote user identifier to a corresponding identifier representing a same resource contribution source as the remote identifier; allocating, by the central server, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to the same resource contribution source among a plurality of resource allocation buckets based on (i) a resource contribution period of the same resource contribution source, (ii) an allocation rule of the resource contribution period, and (iii) a role of the same resource contribution source; determining, by the central server, that a resource distribution target is associated with two or more resource allocation buckets and has contributed an amount of resource data that satisfies a threshold amount across the two or more resource allocation buckets; in response to determining that the amount satisfies the threshold amount, traversing, by the central server, each resource allocation bucket of the two or more resource allocation buckets to identify instances of the normalized resource data that are similar based on a similarity between each of (i) a timestamp and (ii) a remote user identifier; in response to identifying two or more instances of the normalized resource data across the two or more resource allocation buckets based on the traversing, removing, by the central server, at least one instance of the two or more instances of normalized resource data from at least one of the resource allocation buckets to correct a double counting error; aggregating, by the central server and in the resource allocation buckets, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to different resource contribution sources based onto which the allocation rule is applicable; and assigning, by the central server, the aggregated portions of the normalized resource data to a plurality of resource targets based on one or more resource assignment rules applicable to the resource allocation buckets and resource distribution targets that were active during the resource contribution period”, which represents the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a central server and from a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “allocation and distribution of resources”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field but improving the method for “allocation and distribution of resources.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea “allocation and distribution of resources”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. an allocation and distribution of resources concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising: a central server in communication with a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network; and one or more storage devices accessible by the central server and storing instructions that, when executed by the central server, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: …”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “allocation and distribution of resources” using computer technology (e.g., “a system” and “one or more functions of the API”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by a central server which, upon such execution, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: …”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “allocation and distribution of resources” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more functions of the API” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 20 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 21 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated May 12, 2026, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis. Claim 20 has been amended to recite “normalizing the available resource data … and results in normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the central server …”, which eliminates the claim language “the one or more computers” and the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 21 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated May 12, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, after further consideration and search, no prior art was found that teaches, suggests, and/or discloses these limitations and/or some combination thereof:
"normalizing, by the central server, the available resource data received in the plurality of formats, wherein the normalizing of the available resource data includes conversion of (i) first data having a first format and (ii) second data having a second format into a same format, and results in normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the central server, wherein normalizing the available resource data comprises identifying a type of a POS data source that transmitted the available resource data, identifying an application programmable interface (API) associated with the type of the POS data source, and generating the normalized resource data by applying one or more functions of the API to the available resource data";
"determining, by the central server, that a resource distribution target is associated with two or more resource allocation buckets and has contributed an amount of resource data that satisfies a threshold amount across the two or more resource allocation buckets";
“in response to determining that the amount satisfies the threshold amount, traversing, by the central server, each resource allocation bucket of the two or more resource allocation buckets to identify instances of the normalized resource data that are similar based on a similarity between each of (i) a timestamp and (ii) a remote user identifier”;
“in response to identifying two or more instances of the normalized resource data across the two or more resource allocation buckets based on the traversing, removing, by the central server, at least one instance of the two or more instances of normalized resource data from at least one of the resource allocation buckets to correct a double counting error”; and
“aggregating, by the central server and in the resource allocation buckets, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to different resource contribution sources to which the allocation rule is applicable”;
assigning, by the central server, the aggregated portions of the normalized resource data to a plurality of resource targets based on one or more resource assignment rules applicable to the resource allocation buckets and resource distribution targets that were active during the resource contribution period.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being rescinded is 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are directed to a “method”; claims 15-19 are directed to a “system”; and claim 20 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “allocation and distribution of resources”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “extracting, by a central server and from a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network, available resource data in a plurality of formats, wherein the available resource data includes a set of remote user identifiers; normalizing, by the central server, the available resource data received in the plurality of formats, wherein the normalizing of the available resource data includes conversion of (i) first data having a first format and (ii) second data having a second format into a same format, and results in normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the central server, wherein normalizing the available resource data comprises identifying a type of a POS data source that transmitted the available resource data, identifying an application programmable interface (API) associated with the type of the POS data source, and generating the normalized resource data by applying one or more functions of the API to the available resource data; identifying, by the central server, a set of remote user identifiers included in the available resource data; indexing, by the central server and for each remote user identifier of the set of remote user identifiers, the normalized resource data that is attributed to the remote user identifier to a corresponding identifier representing a same resource contribution source as the remote identifier; allocating, by the central server, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to the same resource contribution source among a plurality of resource allocation buckets based on (i) a resource contribution period of the same resource contribution source, (ii) an allocation rule of the resource contribution period, and (iii) a role of the same resource contribution source; determining, by the central server, that a resource distribution target is associated with two or more resource allocation buckets and has contributed an amount of resource data that satisfies a threshold amount across the two or more resource allocation buckets; in response to determining that the amount satisfies the threshold amount, traversing, by the central server, each resource allocation bucket of the two or more resource allocation buckets to identify instances of the normalized resource data that are similar based on a similarity between each of (i) a timestamp and (ii) a remote user identifier; in response to identifying two or more instances of the normalized resource data across the two or more resource allocation buckets based on the traversing, removing, by the central server, at least one instance of the two or more instances of normalized resource data from at least one of the resource allocation buckets to correct a double counting error; aggregating, by the central server and in the resource allocation buckets, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to different resource contribution sources based onto which the allocation rule is applicable; and assigning, by the central server, the aggregated portions of the normalized resource data to a plurality of resource targets based on one or more resource assignment rules applicable to the resource allocation buckets and resource distribution targets that were active during the resource contribution period”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a central server and from a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “allocation and distribution of resources” using computer technology (e.g., “a central server” and “an application programmable interface (API)”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising: a central server in communication with a plurality of disparate point-of-sale data sources over a network; and one or more storage devices accessible by the central server and storing instructions that, when executed by the central server, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: …”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “allocation and distribution of resources” using computer technology (e.g., “a system” and “one or more functions of the API”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by a central server which, upon such execution, cause the central server to perform operations comprising: …”, “an application programmable interface (API)”, and “one or more functions of the API”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “allocation and distribution of resources” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more functions of the API” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 20 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-19 further describe the abstract idea of “allocation and distribution of resources”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 15, and 20.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “allocation and distribution of resources”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 4 and 18 recite new additional elements of “an application programmable interface” and “one or more functions of the application programmable interface”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 7 recites a new additional element of “a time punch entry system”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 8 recites a new additional element of “different servers”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stepanovich (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180130081 A1) – System And Method For Managing Gratuities
Stepanovich discloses a computer-implemented method for allocating gratuities that includes employing at least one, processor configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored in memory to perform the following acts: receiving transaction information from a point of sale, wherein the transaction information comprises at least gratuity data for each of a plurality of transactions during an accounting period; receiving employee information from the point of sale, wherein the employee information comprises at least hours worked for each of a plurality of employees during the accounting period; receiving gratuity distribution rules for allocating gratuities among at least a portion of the employees; and determining a gratuity allocation for each applicable employee of the plurality of employees based on at least the received transaction information, the received employee information, and the received gratuity distribution rules. Also disclosed is a computer-implemented system for managing gratuity allocations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/STEVEN R CHISM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 October 5, 2026
