CTNF 18/393,865 CTNF 78630 DETAILED ACTION Acknowledgments 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/22/2023 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04/29/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Step 1: The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories. Step 2A (prong 1): Claim 1 (representative of claims 19 and 20): The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following: Resource selection circuitry to select one or more selected resources from among a set of resources, based on availability information indicating whether each resource is available or unavailable for selection; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions) the resource selection circuitry comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions) unavailable resource counting circuitry to generate count values indicative of a number of unavailable resources indicated by respective portions of the availability information; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions) shift circuitry to perform, depending on the count values, a plurality of shift stages on a resource identifier vector comprising a plurality of resource identifier elements each for representing a resource identifier of a corresponding one of the resources, to compact the resource identifier elements corresponding to available resources into a contiguous portion of the resource identifier vector; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions) selection circuitry to select, as the one or more selected resources, one or more resources corresponding to resource identifier elements indicated in said contiguous portion of the resource identifier vector. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions) Dependent claim 6 appears remedy the deficiency. Step 2A (prong 2): Claim 1 (representative of claims 19 and 20): …resource selection circuitry …a non-transitory computer-readable medium …a processor These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Step 2B: The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-34-11 Claims 1 and 19, use a generic placeholder as a substitute for means and is preceded by the as shown below. It is unclear whether these words convey function or structure. A limitation construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) must not recite the structure for performing the function. Since no clear function is specified by the word(s) preceding means it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): Unclear Whether Claim Limitation Is To Be Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) – Result of 3-Prong Test Inconclusive Claims 1 and 19 limitations: …shift circuitry to perform… …selection circuitry to select… 07-34-24 These limitations have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In response to this rejection, Applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding Applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may: Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function; Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function. 35 U.S.C. § 112 Sixth Paragraph / 112(f) Content The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 07-30-04 AIA Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. CONCLUSION 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Non-Patent Literature: Qdrant . “Distributed deployment.” (May 30, 2023). Retrieved online 03/26/2026. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl8fqLzr2TAxVzEFkFHZSlHKAQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fqdrant.tech%2Fdocumentation%2Fguides%2Fdistributed_deployment%2F&usg=AOvVaw060pVYh78p6TYwfgcMm7Al&opi=89978449 Foreign Art: AGNEL et al. “Processor For Distributed Computing Management Function, Transmits Computing Node Information Associated With First To Second Network Nodes, Where Second Network Node Offloads Computing Tasks To First Network Node And Data For Computing Tasks Does Not Traverse Core Network.” (WO 2024/025870 A1) GIOKAS et al. “Inventory Management System For Use In Managing Resources And Maintaining Immutable Records Of Usage Of Resources In Pool Using Distributed Ledger E.g. Block Chain, Has Processor That Generates Settlement Request Based On Updated Data Associated With Smart Contract Stored In Distributed Ledger.” (WO 2023/172445 A1) ZINDER . “Electronic Resource Tracking And Storage Computer System For Distributed Blockchain Computing System, Has Processing System Has Processor Which Generates Blockchain Transaction To Participant Identifier Of Participant.” (WO 2017/004527 A1) Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708 . 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents PO Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 or faxed to 571-273-8300 . Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window : Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314. /JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 james.reagan@uspto.gov 571.272.6710 (Office) 571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax) Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 2 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 3 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 5 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 6 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 7 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 8 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 9 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 10 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/393,865 Page 11 Art Unit: 3697