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 .
The instant office action having application number 19/285858, filed on July 30, 2025, has claims 1-20 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 30, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites “receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a category; determining a set of values associated with the category based on a plurality of transactions; determining an optimization level value associated with the category; determining a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value by: determining a rate value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value; and determining the value associated with the category based on the rate value associated with the category; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the value associated with the category.”
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 is nominally directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing executable instructions. Thus, the claim falls within the statutory category of a manufacture. The claim therefore proceeds to Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Step 2A, Prong One – The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites receiving a request for information associated with a category; determining a set of values for the category from transaction information; determining an optimization level value; determining a rate value using the set of values and the optimization level value; determining another category-associated value from the rate value; and presenting that value to a user.
These limitations, considered together, recite the abstract idea of collecting transaction-related information, analyzing that information according to selected criteria or calculations to determine a category-associated value or rate, and reporting the result. The claimed determinations encompass mathematical calculations or relationships because the claim requires deriving a rate and a value from other numerical values and an optimization level, without reciting any particular technological mechanism for performing the calculations.
The limitations also encompass a mental process because, at the level of generality claimed, a person could review transaction records, identify values associated with a category, apply an optimization criterion, calculate or determine a rate and resulting value, and communicate the result using pen and paper or by organizing the information mentally. Merely reciting that these operations are performed using stored program instructions does not remove the underlying information-analysis process from the abstract-idea groupings.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites at least a mathematical concept and a mental process. To the extent the category, transactions, rate, optimization level, and resulting value concern commercial pricing, allocation, or optimization, the claim may additionally recite a certain method of organizing human activity, such as a commercial or business practice. The claim therefore recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two – The Exception Is Not Integrated into a Practical Application
The additional elements beyond the abstract information-analysis process are: (1) a non-transitory machine-readable medium; (2) a program and sets of instructions; (3) at least one processing unit of a device; (4) a client device; (5) an application operating on the device; and (6) a graphical user interface that displays the determined value.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide a generic computer environment in which the abstract idea is carried out. The claim does not recite a particular computer architecture, data structure, processing technique, interface mechanism, or other technical implementation that improves the functioning of the computer, the client device, the GUI, or another technology or technical field. Instead, the medium, program, processing unit, device, client device, and application are used as tools to receive information, execute the recited analysis, and transmit or display the result.
The recited GUI does not impose a meaningful technological limitation. It is used only to present the result of the abstract calculations to the client device. Displaying or communicating the result of an abstract analysis is insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Nor does the claim effect a particular transformation of an article, apply the exception with a particular machine in a meaningful way, or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The claim therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A.
Step 2B – The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More
The additional computer elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A non-transitory storage medium, executable program instructions, a processing unit, a generic device, a client device, an application, and a GUI are conventional computer components and functions when used merely to receive data, perform generic calculations or determinations, and display a result.
Nothing in the claim reflects an inventive concept in the computer implementation. The ordered combination follows the ordinary sequence of receiving a request, obtaining or deriving information, performing calculations or analysis, and returning the result for display. The claim does not specify how the purported optimization level is technically generated, how the transactions are technically processed, or how the rate/value determinations improve computer operation. Instead, the claim uses generic computing components as a drafting mechanism for implementing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements, whether considered separately or in combination, merely amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 therefore does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
For the reasons set forth above, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing transaction-related information to determine a category-associated rate or value and presenting the result. The claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 8 and 15 are also rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites additional limitations of “wherein determining the rate value associated with the category comprises adjusting an average rate value based on the optimization level value”, which is further elaborating on the abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same reasoning is applied to claims 9 and 16.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites additional limitations of “wherein the request is further for information associated with a plurality of categories, wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for: for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular set of values associated with the particular category based on a particular plurality of transactions; for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular optimization level value associated with the particular category; and for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular value associated with the particular category based on the particular set of values associated with the particular category and the particular optimization level value associated with the particular category” , which is further elaborating on the abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same reasoning is applied to claims 4, 10-11, 17-18 and 20.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites additional limitations of “wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for receiving an aggressiveness value from a user of the client device, wherein determining the rate value associated with the category comprises adjusting an average rate value based on the aggressiveness value.” , which is further elaborating on the abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same reasoning is applied to claim 19.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites additional limitations of “wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for: accessing a plurality of historical transactions; and determining a rate value for each historical transaction in the plurality of historical transactions, wherein determining an average rate value is further based on the rate value determined for each historical transaction in the plurality of historical transactions.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same reasoning is applied to claim 7.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12079231. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference Patent. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 1, of the instant application to determining, by the optimization manager, a plurality of optimization level values associated with the plurality of categories based on the first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with the plurality of categories; determining a plurality of values associated with the plurality of categories based on the plurality of optimization level values; prioritizing, by the priority manager, the plurality of categories based on the second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the plurality of values organized based on the prioritized plurality of categories.
Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Instant Application 19/285858
Patent No. 12079231
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a category; determining a set of values associated with the category based on a plurality of transactions; determining an optimization level value associated with the category; determining a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value by: determining a rate value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value; and determining the value associated with the category based on the rate value associated with the category; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the value associated with the category.
8. A method executable by a device, the method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a category; determining a set of values associated with the category based on a plurality of transactions; determining an optimization level value associated with the category; determining a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value by: determining a rate value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value; and determining the value associated with the category based on the rate value associated with the category; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the value associated with the category.
15. A system comprising: a set of processing units; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit to: receive, from a client device, a request for information associated with a category; determine a set of values associated with the category based on a plurality of transactions; determine an optimization level value associated with the category; determine a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value by: determining a rate value based on the set of values and the optimization level value; and determining the value associated with the category based on the rate value associated with the category; and provide, by an application operating on the system, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the value associated with the category.
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: receiving a plurality of data associated with a plurality of categories; providing a first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to an optimization manager operating on the device; providing a second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to a priority manager operating on the device; determining, by the optimization manager, a plurality of optimization level values associated with the plurality of categories based on the first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with the plurality of categories; determining a plurality of values associated with the plurality of categories based on the plurality of optimization level values; prioritizing, by the priority manager, the plurality of categories based on the second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the plurality of values organized based on the prioritized plurality of categories.
8. A method executable by a device, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of data associated with a plurality of categories; providing a first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to an optimization manager operating on the device; providing a second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to a priority manager operating on the device; determining, by the optimization manager, a plurality of optimization level values associated with the plurality of categories based on the first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with the plurality of categories; determining a plurality of values associated with the plurality of categories based on the plurality of optimization level values; prioritizing, by the priority manager, the plurality of categories based on the second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the plurality of values organized based on the prioritized plurality of categories.
15. A system comprising: a set of processing units; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit to: receive a plurality of data associated with a plurality of categories; provide a first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to an optimization manager operating on the system; provide a second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories to a priority manager operating on the system; determine, by the optimization manager, a plurality of optimization level values associated with the plurality of categories based on the first portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; receive, from a client device, a request for information associated with the plurality of categories; determine a plurality of values associated with the plurality of categories based on the plurality of optimization level values; prioritize, by the priority manager, the plurality of categories based on the second portion of the plurality of data associated with the plurality of categories; and provide, by an application operating on the system, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the plurality of values organized based on the prioritized plurality of categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kardokas (US 2010/0145788 A1) (hereinafter Kardokas) in view of Phillips et al. (US 20020116348 A1) (hereinafter Phillips).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Kardokas discloses receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a category [At reference numeral 202 in FIG. 2, a data entry clerk can choose one of two different options that will be used to derive cost savings using this tool, paragraph 37]; determining a set of values associated with the category based on a plurality of transactions [reference numeral 206 shows data entry fields which serve to illustrate the types of costs that could be involved in ordering supplies from a supplier, paragraph 37]; determining a rate value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value [report which details the cardable spend by category and by policy tier for each of several suppliers to the ABC Company, paragraph 60]; and determining the value associated with the category based on the rate value associated with the category [the cardable spend by category and policy tier are given for several different categories, and the first tier is depicted in FIG. 17 at reference numeral 1702. Of course, other such policy tiers of higher dollar ranges could also be listed for the report, paragraph 61]; and providing, by an application operating on the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to the client device, the GUI comprising the value associated with the category [FIG. 6 shows a report of the total money being spent by each payment method of a business. In this case, the business is the "ABC Company." All methods of payment are shown here as well as all categories of payment, paragraph 42]. However Kardokas does not disclose determining an optimization level value associated with the category; determining a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value. On the hand Phillips discloses determining an optimization level value associated with the category [The components combine to allow the dynamic pricing system 100 to use historical data from prior transactions to form profit maximizing price recommendations, paragraph 14]; determining a value associated with the category based on the set of values and the optimization level value [the dynamic pricing system 100 generally includes a Transaction Database 120, a Normalized Sales Forecaster 130, a Price Sensitivity Model 140, a Cost Model 150, a Sales Forecaster 160, and a price optimizer 200. The components combine to allow the dynamic pricing system 100 to use historical data from prior transactions to form profit maximizing price recommendations for future sales, paragraph 14]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transaction-category analysis and reporting system of Kardokas to include the optimization processing taught by Phillips. The modification would use transaction-derived category values and an optimization criterion or level to select or adjust a rate and the resulting category-associated value. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the usefulness of the reported value by better achieving a desired financial objective, such as maximizing savings, return, profitability, or another selected performance measure. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known optimization techniques with known transaction-analysis and reporting functions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 2, 9 and 16, Phillips discloses wherein determining the rate value associated with the category comprises adjusting an average rate value based on the optimization level value [The dynamic pricing system 100 then combines the sales predictions with the price elasticity results to form a prediction of sales levels in the market segment in the future at different prices for the product., paragraph 14].
As per claim 5, 12 and 19, Kardokas discloses wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for receiving an aggressiveness value from a user of the client device, wherein determining the rate value associated with the category comprises adjusting an average rate value based on the aggressiveness value [a lower case letter in parenthesis is intended to mean an integer variable having a value from 1 to the capital case of the lower case letter, which value can be large (i.e., approaching infinity). This (b) can have a value from 1 to B, (c) can have a value from 1 to C, etc., paragraph 27].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 35 USC 101 abstract idea and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for objecting to claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 is because the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the request is further for information associated with a plurality of categories, wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for: for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular set of values associated with the particular category based on a particular plurality of transactions; for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular optimization level value associated with the particular category; and for each particular category in the plurality of categories, determining a particular value associated with the particular category based on the particular set of values associated with the particular category and the particular optimization level value associated with the particular category, wherein the GUI further comprises the particular values associated with the plurality of categories; wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for: accessing a plurality of historical transactions; and determining a rate value for each historical transaction in the plurality of historical transactions, wherein determining an average rate value is further based on the rate value determined for each historical transaction in the plurality of historical transactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am to 4:30pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
NOOSHA ARJOMANDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2166
July 24, 2026
/NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights