DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 11/21/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 11, 20 are amended. Claims 5-6, 8, 15-17 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-4, 7, 9-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the targeting of marketing content and performing evaluations of the marketing efforts. The claim recites the collection of three data sets from different sources and performing analysis on the three data sets and assign customer value to each of the users based on the analysis. The invention further performs segmentation/grouping of consumers and initiating marketing based on the segmentation including generating a RFM grid, including goals for each segment through the RFM grid. The invention then creates a transition representation and evaluates marketing campaigns based on transitions between segments.
The limitations of collecting and analyzing user information, grouping and targeting advertisements, and evaluating advertising performance is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions in advertising and marketing activities. As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards performing targeting marketing through the analysis and segregation of collected user information (similar to In re Ferguson), and performing analysis on the results of marketing efforts for optimization (similar to In re Maucorp).
Furthermore, the invention includes limitations which recite abstract ideas. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “receiving”, “fetching”, “obtaining”, and “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading or reviewing the information and mentally thinking about the information. The initiating of a marketing campaign, but for the “processor” language, can be performed by a person thinking of which advertisements to provide to a particular user. The steps of “creating”, “generating” and “evaluating” in the context of the claim includes the user mentally modeling information, visualizing/representing the information, and seeing changes in the modeled information. The step of “assigning” in the context of the claim includes the user mentally thinking of goals for different segments. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps and using a machine learning algorithm. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of collecting information and analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component including collecting information from other computer systems as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, while the invention does recite the utilization of a machine learning algorithm, this is still directed towards the execution of instructions using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on the type of information (such as claims 2-4, 7, 9), and information regarding extra solution activity of presenting advertisements (such as claim 10). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information and relationship between the information. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards the implementation of targeted marketing campaigns and the evaluation of said campaigns. As currently claimed, the invention collecting information regarding a plurality of consumers including current and past information from the user device and other platforms, and performs analysis on the collected information to calculate a value for each consumer. The invention then segments the plurality of users including applying goals and RFM filters for each segment and initiates one or more marketing campaigns based on patterns of individual segments. The invention further creates a transition representation for each of the segments based on a RFM matrix model and evaluates the effectiveness of the marketing campaigns using the transaction representation and RFM value matrix model.
The Examiner notes the following references as being most relevant to the present application:
Hoffman et al. (US 20190122251 A1), which talks about analysis of consumer behavior in response to marketing campaigns including perform RFM analysis.
Sewak (US 20150046223 A1), which talks about improving advertisement campaign performance through analysis of RFM scoring.
Womack et al. (US 20040122725 A1), which talks about marketing planning including RFM based clustering of users.
Singh et al. (US 20180336597 A1), which talks about offer personalization including utilizing RFM information for optimizing the selection of offers.
Although these references teaches/suggests certain elements of the claimed invention such as the collection and analysis of user information (Hoffman), the segmentation of users and implementing marketing campaigns based on segments (Womack), and evaluating response to campaigns (Sewak), these references fails to teach or suggest the creation of a transition representation for the segments based on a RFM value matrix model. The Examiner notes specifically, as discussed in references such as Sewak and Womack, the analysis of RFM results in scores/values for the individual users, and does not teach or suggest specifically tracking transitions based on a RFM value matrix model. As such, the Examiner has determined the invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant asserts the limitations of fetching information from electronic sources, analyzing the collected information using machine learning models, assigning values based on a model, enabling segmentation in real time, initiating marketing campaigns in real time, creating a transition representation, and evaluating effectiveness in real time. The Examiner notes the amended limitation as directed towards fetching information from particular computer devices is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as this is merely the receiving of data over a network and using the internet to gather data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Furthermore, although the claims do recite utilizing models including machine learning models and creating abstract representations of information, these are still algorithms and instructions including using the computer as a tool for following mental steps to make determinations and calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360, and Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Still furthermore, the Applicant asserts that certain steps of the claimed invention can not reasonably be performed by the human mind as they are performed in real time. The Examiner notes as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and MPEP 2106.05(a), the use of a computer to accelerate or automate a manual process does not render the limitation non-abstract (FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). As such, the Examiner has determined the invention as claimed is directed towards a judicial exception.
The Applicant further asserts the invention as claimed is integrated into a practical application as the invention requires technology and more than using the computer as a tool. The Examiner notes that as discussed in cases such as TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the use of computer technology to accelerate the analysis of information is determined to not be significantly more. Still furthermore, as discussed in Example 47 claim of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, the recitation and use of particular algorithms and models in analysis, including machine learning models, are still considered abstract. The Applicant further asserts the limitations of the RFM grid and transition representation are not simply representation of information as these are computer generated outputs which further drive additional automated actions. The Examiner notes as demonstrated in Example 48 claim 1 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, using machine learning to generate information is not sufficient to render the claims as significantly more. Furthermore, unlike Example 48 claim 2, which discusses generating and synthesizing speech waveforms to mask specific waveforms and isolate a particular source, the present invention does not specifically address a technical issue (such as for voice recognition), but rather the transition representation is the changing of a state of a user object representing the recency-frequency-monetary activities of the user. As such, the Examiner has determined the claimed invention to not be integrated into a practical application.
The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is significantly more as the invention is a technology based solution similar to Bascom through the integration of predictive analytics, automated segmentation, and dynamic performance tracking. The Examiner notes in the case of Bascom, the concept of filtering was determined to be abstract, and the invention of Bascom was determined to be significantly more based on the particular configuration of server and client filtering with the associated benefits of both server and client filtering. In the present case, the invention is directed towards a computer system comprising at least one processor to implement the method steps. The claims do not recite a system of devices with a particular configuration to provide a technical benefit like Bascom. As such, the Examiner has determined the claimed invention to not be significantly more.
Thus the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh et al. (US 20180336597 A1), which talks about targeting personalized offers including utilizing RFM modeling in the targeting of content.
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 VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
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, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622