CTFR 18/428,355 CTFR 85075 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 01/30/2026. Currently, claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-22 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 12 and 17 have been cancelled. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the relevant patent and non-patent prior art, in single or in combination, teaches the combination: “generating a first tree structure from the plurality of negative open items, wherein each of the plurality of negative open items is a node in the first tree structure; applying a first tree traversal algorithm to traverse the first tree structure, wherein the traversal is constrained by the negative target resource amount; assigning the negative open items traversed in the first tree structure to the planned allocation method; determining a positive target resource amount according to the negative target resource amount and the planned target resource amount that corresponds with the allocation method; generating a second tree structure from the subset of positive open items, wherein each of the subset of the plurality of positive open items is a node in the second tree structure; applying a second tree traversal algorithm to traverse the second tree structure wherein the traversal is constrained by the positive target resource amount; and assigning the positive open items traversed in the second tree structure to the allocation method”, as recited in claims 1, 10 and 15 . 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 1-11, 13-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-22 recite method, system and computer product for assigning open items to one or more allocation (payment) methods. Exemplary claim 1 recites in part, “determining a negative target resource amount according to an allocation strategy configuration and the planned target resource amount that corresponds with the allocation method; (defining negative allocation method target amount) generating a first tree structure from the plurality of negative open items, wherein each of the plurality of negative open items is a node in the first tree structure; (organizing/sorting negative open items) applying a first tree traversal algorithm to traverse the first tree structure, wherein the traversal is constrained by the negative target resource amount; (summing the negative open items) assigning the negative open items traversed in the first tree structure to the planned allocation method; (assigning the negative open items to an allocation method) determining a positive target resource amount according to the negative target resource amount and the planned target resource amount that corresponds with the allocation method; (defining positive allocation method target amount) selecting a subset of the plurality of positive open items according to an allocation strategy configuration; (retrieving positive open items based on one or more rules) generating a second tree structure from the subset of positive open items, wherein each of the subset of the plurality of positive open items is a node in the second tree structure; (organizing/sorting positive open items) applying a second tree traversal algorithm to traverse the second tree structure wherein the traversal is constrained by the positive target resource amount; and (summing the negative open items) assigning the positive open items traversed in the second tree structure to the allocation method”. (assigning the open items to an allocation method) The claim recites the limitations of 1) receiving allocation method and associated one or more rules (allocation strategy, target amounts, etc.), 2) retrieving open and negative items, 3) sorting/organizing the open and negative items, 4) assigning open and negative open items based on one or more rules. The above steps describe the process of assigning open items to an allocation method based on one or more rules. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of a computing device having one or more processors and a memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “receiving a request to allocate a predefined resource to an external entity…” and “retrieving a set of unassigned open items associated with the external entity…” represents transmitting and retrieving data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. “Transmitting/obtaining information over a network” and “storing and retrieving data in memory” have been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 10 and 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale. Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 18-22 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. For example, claim 21 describes that manual assignment of the set of unassigned open items cannot be practically performed in a human mind. However, the claim recites additional elements in the form of a computing device (one or more processors and memory) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea. In addition, the courts have indicated that “mere automation of a manual process” is not sufficient to show improvement in computer functionalities. See MPEP 2106.05(a) . Claim 22 describes processing the positive and negative open items in accordance with the planned target resource amount for each allocation method. This step describes processing the open items based on the result of the method allocation(s). The step amounts to insignificant post-solution activity and simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activity known to the industry (See Applicant’s filed specification, paragraphs 0002 & 0010] Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims describe the process of assigning open items to allocation (payment) method based on one or more rules. The claim describes the steps of, 1) receiving allocation method and associated one or more rules (allocation strategy, target amounts, etc.), 2) retrieving open and negative items, 3) sorting/organizing the open and negative items, and 4) assigning open and negative open items based on one or more rules. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) . The claims recite additional elements in the form of a computing device having one or more processors and a memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The recited computing device (one or more processor and memory) simply provides automating the process of performing the innovative tree traversal process on a large volume of open items. The computing device provides physical hardware resources for storing and processing the large volume of open items. The courts have indicated that “mere automation of a manual process” is not sufficient to show improvement in computer functionalities. See MPEP 2106.05(a) . When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, the recited computing device (one or more processor and memory) represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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. /OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/428,355 Page 10 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights