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
Claims 1-30 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated November 26, 2025. In Response, submitted March 4, 2026, claims 1, 11, and 21 were amended; claims 4, 7, 14, 17, 24, and 27 were cancelled; and claims 31-36 were added. No new subject matter was introduced in these amendments. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-36 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 12 of the Response regarding the previous objection of the claims, have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Without addressing the propriety of the rejection, claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended as noted above in the sole interest of expediting prosecution. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1. Claims 12-20 depend from claim 11. Claims 22-30 depend from claim 21. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the claims are still determined to recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more at Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12-13 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 31, and 32 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 33, and 34 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 21-23, 25, 26, 28-30, 35 and 36 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture). Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-36 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 substantially recite receiving a request for distribution of resources, wherein the resources are associated with a transaction to be fulfilled by an entity, and wherein the transaction is associated with a set of objects;
accessing data generated;
processing the data using a missing-data imputation operation to detect in real-time one or more fulfillment actions associated with the set of objects, wherein the one or more fulfillment actions are detected in real-time as a plurality of fulfillment actions associated with other objects are being received;
determining in real-time that fulfillment conditions associated with a subset of objects have been satisfied, wherein the satisfaction of the fulfillment conditions is determined in real-time as the plurality of fulfillment actions associated with the other objects are being received, and wherein the satisfaction of the fulfillment conditions is determined based on the one or more fulfillment actions;
identifying a fulfillment metric associated with the subset of objects;
determining a predetermined threshold based on an elapsed time from a time point at which the request was received;
determining that the fulfillment metric exceeds the predetermined threshold; and distributing the resources after determining that the fulfillment metric exceeds the predetermined threshold.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of “tracking fulfillment of transactions” (see specification para. 2). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 21 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) one or more processors (claim 11) / one or more processors of a computer system (claim 21), (ii) memory storing thereon instructions (claim 11) / non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instruction (claim 21), (iii) a computer-implemented method (claim 1), (iv) signal data (claims 1, 11, 21), (v) a plurality of sensor devices (claims 1, 11, 21), and (vi) with a sensor data layer of an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor network (claims 1, 11, 21).
The additional elements of (i) one or more processors / one or more processors of a computer system, (ii) memory storing thereon instructions / non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing, and (iii) a computer-implemented method thereon executable instruction are recited at a high level of generality (see [0172] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the one or more processors, [0174] discussing the memory storing thereon instructions / non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instruction, [0171] discussing the computer-implemented method) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iv) signal data, (v) a plurality of sensor devices, and (vi) with a sensor data layer of an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor network are recited at a high level of generality (See [0060] of the Applicant's Specification discussing the signal data, the plurality of sensor devices, and the sensor data layer of the Internet of Things (IoT) sensor network) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., IoT sensor technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 6 and 7 showing all the additional elements (i) one or more processors, (ii) memory storing thereon instructions / non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instruction, (iii) a computer-implemented method, (iv) signal data, (v) a plurality of sensor devices, and (vi) with a sensor data layer of an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor network in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 11, and 21 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-30 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-30 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 31, 33, and 35 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations by substantially reciting: wherein determining in real-time that the fulfillment conditions have been satisfied includes:
generating a feature vector based on the one or more fulfillment actions and domain data associated with the set of objects;
processing the feature vector to generate a confidence value indicating whether a fulfillment condition have been satisfied for a corresponding object of the set of objects; and
determining that the fulfillment conditions have been satisfied based on the confidence value exceeding a confidence threshold.
Claims 31, 33, and 35 also recites the additional elements of a machine learning model and an artificial-intelligence subsystem being executed on a special-purpose computer, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0043] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the machine learning model, and [0093] discussing the artificial-intelligence subsystem being executed on the special-purpose computer) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning technology, and purpose-built computers) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a machine learning model and an artificial-intelligence subsystem being executed on a special-purpose computer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 31, 33, and 35 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 32, 34, and 36 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 32, 34, and 36 also recites the additional elements of a radiofrequency identifier (RFID) sensor, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a motion sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a data fusion layer, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0060] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the radiofrequency identifier (RFID) sensor, the optical sensor, the infrared sensor, the motion sensor, the accelerometer, and the gyroscope, and [0061] discussing the data fusion layer) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., IoT sensor technology, and machine learning technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a radiofrequency identifier (RFID) sensor, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a motion sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a data fusion layer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 32, 34, and 36 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-36 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0207449 to Cooks et al (hereafter Cooks). Cooks discloses ingesting data, detecting fulfillment actions, determining fulfillment conditions to satisfy delivery.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 11,093,884 to Devarakonda et al (hereafter Devarakonda). Devarakonda discloses determining and detecting fulfillment conditions and actions in real-time, and applying machine learning models to the data.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0060506 to Ghosh et al (hereafter Ghosh). Ghosh discloses receiving sensor data from Internet of Things sensors via a sensor data layer and processing data to determine fulfilment actions and determining thresholds regarding objects.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0041842 to Cella et al (hereafter Cella). Cella discloses using a missing-data imputation operation in the processing of signal data received from IoT sensors.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Cooks in view of Devarakonda and further in view of Ghosh and even further in view of Cella fails to disclose determining a predetermined threshold based on an elapsed time from a time point at which the request was received. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights