DETAILED ACTION
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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 06/23/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 10, and 16 being independent).
The amendment filed 06/23/2026 to the claims has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 10-15):
(1) Applicant’s arguments that “1. The claims as amended are patent eligible as they are distinguishable from ineligible methods of organizing human activity.” (see pages 11-12), are not found persuasive.
In Response (1): Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Managing proportionate allocation with generated a pool table including one or more pools for loan is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2) Applicant’s arguments that “2. The claims as amended are patent eligible because they improve the functionality of computing networks via a unique arrangement of error-processing operations.” (see pages 12-15), are not found persuasive.
In Response (2): It is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of one or more processor are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. The claim limits also recite the use of processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment.
In no prior art of record, the Examiner would like to point out that the criteria for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 are different from the criteria for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is based on the evaluation of the Alice/Mayo two-part test, as detailed in MPEP 2016, which incorporates the Alice decision and the 2019 PEG. As per MPEP 2106(I.) The Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice and the concept of processing the transfer of funds at issue here. All these fall squarely within the realm of abstract ideas as interpreted in the Alice decision. Also as was pointed out in Ultramercial, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). On the other hand, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 are based on prior art. The presence of novel or non-obvious components (with respect to prior art of record) in a claim makes the claim allowable over prior art. The criteria for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 are different from the criteria for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In Enfish, the courts applied the distinction to reject the §101 challenge at stage one because the claims in Enfish focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement a particular database technique in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348-49, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. So Enfish has no applicability.
In Amdocs, the claims are directed towards the network processing data in way that was unconventional resulting to an improvement to the technical area for processing data by reducing the flow of data records and reducing the amount of data stored in the central database, thus eliminating capacity bottlenecks, and improving the scalability and efficiency of the system, resulting in an improvement to the additional elements themselves. However, in the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved as the claims provide “one or more processors” (i.e. “apply it or the equivalent as amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to generic computer component). So Amdocs has no applicability
In DDR, the claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because applicant’s claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. So DDR has no applicability.
In Bascom, the claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in BASCOM, in which the inventive concept was the unconventional arrangement of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, this design permitted the filtering tool to have both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server and was not conventional or generic, instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345.). In the instant application the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. Therefore, BASCOM has no applicability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, 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): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing proportionate allocation with generated a pool table including one or more pools for loan which contains the steps of generating, receiving, determining, comparing, and entering. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 10 is direct to system, and claim 16 is direct to a non-transitory computer readable medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for managing proportionate allocation with generated a pool table including one or more pools for loan is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {… generating a pool table comprising one or more pools each comprising a set of records comprising a loan identifier, account identifier, investor identifier, pool identifier, and amount identifier; receiving a first data file comprising a first set of records, wherein each record of the first set of records includes the loan identifier, the amount identifier and the investor identifier; receiving a second data file comprising a second set of records, wherein each record of the second set of records includes the investor identifier and an account identifier; generating a key table based on the first data file and second data file; generating the pool table based in part on the key table; determining an unallocated value by summing each amount identifier within the pool that has a null loan identifier; comparing the unallocated value against a pro rata threshold, in response to determining the unallocated value exceeds the pro rata threshold, for each record, generating a credit pro rata value and allocating the credit pro rata value to each amount identifier within the pool; in response to determining the unallocated value is less than or equal to the pro rata threshold, for each record, generating a debit pro rata value and allocating the debit pro rata value to each amount identifier value within the pool; in response to detecting an error while generating the pool table, entering a quarantine state comprising storing the pool in a quarantine database to prevent further processing and transmission of the pool table.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as generating a pool table, determining an unallocated value, and generating a credit or debit pro rata value.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “one or more processors” , “database”, and “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium, database) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0064-0065]: processor, program code, memory device, network interface, viewing applications, network, remote communication service, data source, data repository) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium, database) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 2, 11 and 17, the step of “… wherein generating the credit pro rata value for each record comprises dividing unpaid principal value of the record by the sum of the unpaid principal values of all records within the pool.” (i.e., generating the credit pro rata value), in claims 3, 12, and 18, the step of “… wherein generating the debit pro rata value for each record comprises dividing the daily payment value of the record by the sum of the daily payment value of all records within the pool.” (i.e., generating the debit pro rata value), in claim 4, the step of “… wherein detecting the error comprises detecting a null value assigned to the pool identifier” (i.e., detecting the error), in claims 5, 14 and 20, the step of “… receiving a third data file comprising a third set of records, wherein each record of the third set of records includes the loan identifier, the amount identifier, the pool identifier, and one or more of the investor identifier and the account identifier; and merging the third data file with the key table to form the pool table..” (i.e., receiving data and merging data with the key table), in claims 6 and 15, the step of “… wherein an error results from generating the key table or merging the third data file with the key table;” (i.e., detecting an error), in claim 7, the step of “… storing the pool in a quarantine database; generating an alert indicating the pool is in the quarantine database; and displaying the alert.” (i.e., storing the pool and generating an alert), in claim 8, the step of “… comparing the amount identifier value for each record within the pool to the amount identifier value for each record within the first data file and the third data file.” (i.e., comparing the amount identifier), and in claim 9, the step of “… identifying a record within the pool wherein the account identifier is null, and the investor identifier is null..” (i.e., identifying a record), in claims 13 and 19, the step of “… receiving a first data file comprising a first set of records, wherein each record of the first set of records includes the loan identifier, the amount identifier and the investor identifier ; receiving a second data file comprising a second set of records, wherein each record of the second set of records includes the investor identifier and an account identifier; generating a key table based on the first data file and second data file; and generating the pool table based in part on the key table” (i.e., receiving data) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Providing proportionate allocation (e.g., loan) with generated the pool table is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 10, and 16 above. Merely claiming the same process using a pool table to provide proportionate allocation value for loan does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
August 31, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights