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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on February 02, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 9 and 12 remain canceled. Claim 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 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Fetching the available resource data from a subset …” should read “fetching the available resource data from a subset …”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Identifying a type of a data source that transmitted …; Identifying-an application programmable interface associated with the type of the data …” should read “identifying a type of a data source that transmitted …; identifying an application programmable interface associated with the type of the data …”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining, by the one or more processors, that a double counting error …” should read “determining that a double counting error …”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “assigning the aggregated portions … and resource distribution targets that were active during the resource contribution period” should read “assigning the aggregated portions … and resource distribution targets that were active during the resource contribution period.”.
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 that “the claims are eligible because they integrate any alleged exception into a “practical application” that improves computer functionality, and also recite a combination of features “other than what was well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” when the application was filed; the claims do more than generally link an abstract idea to a technological environment as alleged by the Examiner; the claimed solution extracts disparate data in a “plurality of formats” from remote sources, and performs a system-agnostic normalization process that applies proprietary API functions to create normalized data in a ”same format recognized by the one or more processors”; the Application specifically highlights the technical benefits of the claimed subject matter resulting in a system agnostic hub that allows for disparate systems to be added to and/or removed from the system hub without negatively affecting operation of the system, which is an improvement to the functioning over the system because the system is more adaptable for use with disparate systems implemented to operate on different, and potentially proprietary, data formats; this is also a practical application of any alleged abstract idea because it results in a modular data architecture that provides "plug and play" compatibility with disparate data sources, rather than requiring any changes to the disparate data sources to operate with the claimed system; similar to Ex parte Carmody, the present claims recite an analogous technological interrelationship between disparate, independently maintained systems and a central processing hub; as the present claims are analogous to the advantages provided by the system in Ex parte Carmody, the claims should be deemed patent eligible as a practical application of any alleged abstract idea; as amended, claim 1 also now includes the system improvement of preventing double counting of normalized data within a given bucket or across buckets based on the similarity of the multiple instances of the normalized data; this is a "particular way to achieve a desired outcome" that a human could not reasonably perform and improves the functioning of the system by incorporating the capability to detect and correct errors, resulting in a self-healing system, which amounts to a practical application of any alleged abstract idea; the claims are also patent eligible under Step 2B because they recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea; the combination of elements, including the normalization of all independent claims and/or automated double-counting correction operations of independent claim 1, as implemented in combination with other features of the claims, were not "well-understood, routine, or conventional" at the time the application was filed; these combinations of features result in a modular data architecture that provides "plug and play" compatibility with disparate data sources, rather than requiring any changes to the disparate data sources to operate with the claimed system; and the automated double-counting correction operations also result in a self-healing system that identifies and corrects errors that appear in the system using a set of features that were not well-known, routine, or conventional at the time of filing.”
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 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘626 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates to allocation and distribution of resources, 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 one or more processors and from a plurality of different data sources, available resource data in a plurality of formats, wherein the available resource data includes a set of remote user identifiers; normalizing, by the one or more processors, 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 creates normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the one or more processors; indexing, by the one or more processors, the normalized resource data attributed to each given remote user identifier in the set of remote user identifiers using a corresponding identifier representing a same resource contribution source as the given remote identifier; allocating, by the one or more processors, 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 one or more processors, that a double counting error has occurred based on a similarity between one or more of amounts, remote identifiers, and timestamps of two or more instances of normalized resource data in one or more resource allocation buckets; removing at least one instance of the two or more instances of normalized resource data based on the determined double counting; aggregating, by the one or more processors and in the resource allocation buckets, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to different resource contribution sources based on the allocation rule; and assigning, by the one or more processors, 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 of the resource contribution period”, which represent 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 element of the claim, such as “one or more processors”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does 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 element operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional element represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does 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: one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: …”, 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., “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices”). Therefore, the use of 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 one or more processors which, upon such execution, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: …”, and “the one or more computers”, 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., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of 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.
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 one or more processors and from a plurality of different data sources, available resource data in a plurality of formats, wherein the available resource data includes a set of remote user identifiers; normalizing, by the one or more processors, 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 creates normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the one or more processors; indexing, by the one or more processors, the normalized resource data attributed to each given remote user identifier in the set of remote user identifiers using a corresponding identifier representing a same resource contribution source as the given remote identifier; allocating, by the one or more processors, 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 one or more processors, that a double counting error has occurred based on a similarity between one or more of amounts, remote identifiers, and timestamps of two or more instances of normalized resource data in one or more resource allocation buckets; removing at least one instance of the two or more instances of normalized resource data based on the determined double counting; aggregating, by the one or more processors and in the resource allocation buckets, portions of the normalized resource data indexed to different resource contribution sources based on the allocation rule; and assigning, by the one or more processors, 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 of 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 element of the claim, such as “one or more processors”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does 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 processors”). Therefore, the use of this additional element does 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, it does 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: one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: …”, 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., “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices”). Therefore, the use of 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 one or more processors which, upon such execution, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: …”, and “the one or more computers”, 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., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of 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 a new additional element of “an application programmable interface”, 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Antecedent Basis
Claim 20 recites “normalizing the available resource data … and results in normalized resource data having the same format recognized by the one or more computers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more computers” in claim 20. Applicant failed to eliminate the claim language “the one or more computers”, when amending the preamble of claim 20 to eliminate “of one or more computers”. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dravneek et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220070110 A1) – System For Adjusting Resource Allocation Based On User Selection
Dravneek discloses systems, computer program products, and methods for resource allocation based on user selection. The present invention may be configured to provide one or more resource allocation offers to a user device associated with a user and receive, from the user device, an acceptance of a first resource allocation offer of the one or more resource allocation offers. The present invention may be configured to adjust, based on the acceptance of the first resource allocation offer, a second resource allocation offer from an initial amount of resources to an adjusted amount of resources, where the adjusted amount of resources is greater than the initial amount of resources. The present invention may be configured to provide the second resource allocation offer to the user device.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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 D. Donlon can be reached (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights