DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 12/29/2025.
No claims have been amendment.
Claim 4 is canceled
Claims 5 and 6 remain pending in this application.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 03/02/2020.
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.
Claim 5 and 6 are directed towards a process of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including calculating in an equation. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 5, 6 the independent claim (claim 5 ) are directed to managing customer data accounts, In independent claim 5, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 5, an RFM-S scoring process that allows a digital follow-up to a visit plan of a customer, the RFM-S scoring process comprising:
retrieving data from at least one economy database and the CRM database;
understanding and cleaning retrieved data;
calculating a recency and a sensitivity and a frequency and a monetary score;
using the calculation in an equation;
sharing the displayed RFM-S score with a sales representative;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction; managing personal behavior (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction; managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of database. The claims recite the steps are performed by the database.
The limitations of
initiating a flow of data from at least one economy database and a CRM database, the at least one economy database allowing a retrieval of data pertaining to a U.S. dollar rate of exchange and a mortgage loan rate of exchange, the CRM database storing and processing data from the customer;
displaying an RSM-S score obtained from the equation;
terminating the flow of data.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by database. The database are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), database is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The database is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the database. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
initiating a flow of data from at least one economy database and a CRM database, the at least one economy database allowing a retrieval of data pertaining to a U.S. dollar rate of exchange and a mortgage loan rate of exchange, the CRM database storing and processing data from the customer;
displaying an RSM-S score obtained from the equation;
terminating the flow of data.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a database to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim 6 does not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claim 6 recites limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claim 6 recites database which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 6 recites database, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 6 recites steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 6. Therefore claim 6 does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 of this title, 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication US 20140310060, Malsbenden, et al. to hereinafter Malsbenden in view of United States Patent Publication US 20110119071, Phillips, et al.
Referring to Claim 5, Malsbenden teaches a RFM-S scoring process that allows digital follow-up to visit plan of a customers, the RFM-S scoring system comprising:
initiating a flow (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0067, software 50 executing on the computer stores a recency score with each customer identifier and product identifier. In further embodiments, software 46 stores the frequency score with each customer identifier and product identifier. In yet other embodiments, software 54 stores the monetary score with each customer identifier and product identifier.),
retrieving data from at least one economy database and the CRM database (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0045, Upon a subsequent purchase, return, exchange, or other transaction by customer 16 after login, each transaction is associated with the customer's unique identifier and stored on database 21. In the event of a purchase, a series of scores are calculated and associated with customer 16 in order to quantify the customer's buying habits, and these scores are also associated with each customer identifier and stored on database 21. In some embodiments, in the event of an exchange or return, the series of scores are calculated and associated with customer 16 in order to quantify the customer's exchange or return habits, and these scores are also associated with each customer identifier and each product identifier before being stored on database 21
Malsbenden: Sec. 0044, after receiving a successful customer login 18 from customer 16, software 32 retrieves customer information from database 21, where the customer information is anything associated with customer 16, such as customer identifier, past purchases, past returns, past reviews, other historical transactions, and the like.);
understanding and clearing retrieved data (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0100-0106, describes upon the calculating and processing data the merging of existing data);
-calculating a recency and a sensitivity (See Phillips), and a frequency and a monetary scores (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0046, If a customer makes a return of a product, a reverse calculation is performed, where the recent product purchase score, frequency score, and monetary score are each recalculated as if the returned product was never purchased. Moreover, the overall score is recalculated to reflect the returned product.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0057, the frequency score is calculated per product, which is particularly beneficial when comparing the frequency scores of products that tend to have vastly different purchasing patterns.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0059, the recency score is calculated per product for the same reasons above. In further embodiments, because recency and/or frequency scores are affected in some embodiments, the monetary score described below can also be affected and therefore the monetary score is calculated per product.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0063, the monetary score is calculated per product, which is particularly beneficial when comparing the monetary scores of products that tend to have vastly different purchasing patterns. Continuing with the example above with respect to the perishable goods and furniture, even though a frequent purchaser of the perishable goods may make consistent purchases of products, a single purchase of furniture is typically far more expensive than even numerous purchases of perishable goods.);
using the calculation in an equation (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0097, Step 1—The total frequency range for each customer is calculated initially in descending order of their range.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0098, Step 2—The sum of all these scores is taken and 0.20 * score is calculated to begin separating the scores into the percentile ranges
Malsbenden: Sec. 0099, Step 3—If a customers' frequency range lies between the (sum of all scores * 0.20) then the customer lies in the top 20 range and so on
Malsbenden: Sec. 0100, Step 4—After the Top 20 is calculated, the next percentile (21-40%) range is calculated by taking the last calculated value for the Top 20 percentile (Lower Range) and looped till the percentile range is completed
Malsbenden: Sec. 0101, Step 5—The same technique is applied for the remaining percentile ranges
Malsbenden: Sec. 0095-0106,);
displaying an RFM-S scores obtained from the equation (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0048, FIG. 6 depicts an example of such a preferred customer along with the customer's recency, frequency, monetary, and overall scores.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0090, RFM scores are calculated per product in as a narrow a manner as desired by computer 24.);
sharing the displayed RFM-S score with the sales representative (130) (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0005, consumer seeking information about the product and possibly the merchant, the merchant may also want information about the consumer, especially consumers likely to make purchases from the merchant
Malsbenden: Sec. 0006, a salesperson may be available to observe an interested customer and assist the customers with samples or answer any questions. In an internet or website setting, merchants typically lack the salesperson to observe any interested customers or to follow-through with them.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0076, software 72 for sending promotions knows where to send the promotions based on cookies saved on the machines of customers, and where favorable RFM scores would prompt software 72 to send the promotions to customers with favorable RFM scores.
Malsbenden: Sec. 0093, the below table shows the fields that are used when calculating a RFM score and depicted in another embodiment of FIG. 6.),
terminating the flow of data (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0100, After the Top 20 is calculated, the next percentile (21-40%) range is calculated by taking the last calculated value for the Top 20 percentile (Lower Range) and looped till the percentile range is completed
Malsbenden: Sec. 0100-0106,).
Malsbenden does not explicitly teach from at least one economy database and a CRM database, the at least one economy database allowing a retrieval of data pertaining to a U.S. dollar rate of exchange and a mortgage loan rate of exchange, the CRM database storing and processing data from the customer; sensitivity scores.
However, Phillips teaches these limitations
from at least one economy database and a CRM database, the at least one economy database allowing a retrieval of data pertaining to a U.S. dollar rate of exchange and a mortgage loan rate of exchange, the CRM database storing and processing data from the customer (
Phillips: Sec. 0025, Price sensitivity scorer 104 calculates a price sensitivity score for prospect 100 using data associated with prospect 100. The data associated with the prospect is obtained from provider 102 and/or from third party database 108 via network 106. It is not necessary to have prospect data from both sources in order to calculate a price sensitivity score… As an example of prospect data from third party database 108, third party database 108 may be a credit bureau (such as TransUnion, Equifax or Experian) and the prospect data may include information about credit history, previous or current accounts, past due information, etc. Some examples of data are described in further detail below.
Phillips: Sec. 0026, Price sensitivity scorer 104 calculates a price sensitivity score for prospect 100 and returns it to provider 102, for example by entering data associated with the prospect into a scoring function which outputs a score. In some embodiments, provider 102 uses the price sensitivity score to calculate or adjust a price for prospect 100. For example, a less price sensitive prospect may be offered a (slightly) higher price or a price at the higher end of a range of prices being considered for that prospect. In some embodiments, a price calculated based on a price sensitivity score is a rate, such as an interest rate for a mortgage, loan, credit card, line of credit, etc. In some embodiments, a price calculated based on a price sensitivity score is in units of some currency (e.g., in US dollars, Canadian dollars, British pounds, etc.). In some embodiments, provider 102 uses one or more other pieces of additional information in calculating a price. For example, provider 102 may use both a price sensitivity score and a credit score (e.g., a FICO score) in calculating a price. In one example, a nominal or initial price is first calculated using a credit score and the price sensitivity score is used to adjust the nominal/initial price (e.g., adjust it by [0,Δ] or [−Δ/2,Δ/2])
Phillips: Sec. 0037, Updating a training data set and regenerating a scoring function may permit the scores to respond to changes in market and/or economic conditions (which may cause people to become more or less price sensitive). In general, it is not necessary to recalculate a new scoring function for each prospect.
Phillips: Sec. 0051, the set of non-scoreable variables has four categories: pricing data, product/provider data, market data and macroeconomic data. Pricing data includes the price at which a transaction was approved (by the provider, for final approval by the prospect), competitor and market benchmark prices (specifically in this example: APR, competitor APR and prime rate). Product/provider data includes type (e.g., whether the transaction is associated with an auto loan, an unsecured loan, a home equity loan, etc.), an amount (e.g., in US dollars, Canadian dollars, etc.), a term or length (e.g., 60 months, 24 months, 30 years, etc.) and a rate type (e.g., whether the rate is variable or fixed or some combination thereof (e.g., a 5-year ARM). Market data may include (but is not limited to) channel (e.g., how the prospect came to or contacted the provider, for example by way of a dealer/broker, Internet/website, branch, telephone, etc.) and HHI. HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) is a measure of market concentration (e.g., how much or to what degree a market is monopolized); other measures of market concentration may be used. Macroeconomic data may include but is not limited to macroeconomic indicators describing the state of the market at the time of the transaction. In training data set 400, macroeconomic data includes unemployment (e.g., at the time the transaction occurred and/or at any level including local or state level such as unemployment rates in the state or metropolitan area in which the transaction occurred or the prospect resides) and credit or liquidity risk premium.),
Phillips describes severs and databases the stores and process customer information pertaining to customers, economics, USD, and mortgage information
The type of database constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and should not be given further patentable weight. The type of database, without positive functional recitation as to its distinctive use, amounts to mere labeling of data and does not functionally alter the method of managing customer data. See MPEP 2106.01 [R-5]. Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would otherwise have been anticipated by the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Thus, this further purported limitation of claim 4-6 fails to further limit the invention as claimed.
sensitivity scores (
Phillips: Sec. 0020, a price sensitivity score is a representative or estimate of which price sensitivity “bin” a prospect falls into. For example, suppose price sensitivity scores ranged from 1-10, where people having a score of 10 are the most price sensitive. A score of 1 may correspond to being in the lowest price sensitivity bin of all people (e.g., these people are the bottom 10% of least price sensitive people), the people with a score of 2 would fall in the next bin (e.g., those people would be the next least price sensitive people), etc
Phillips: Sec. 0027, the use of price sensitivity scores may improve the efficiency of provider 102. For example, the process of vetting a prospect for a mortgage may be very time consuming and/or labor intensive for the provider 102. The provider may have to hire people to review paychecks, review past credit history, confirm the prospect has sufficient funds for closing or down payment, etc. If the provider could increase the take up rate using price sensitivity scores, then fewer man hours would be wasted vetting prospects who decide in the end not to take up a mortgage. Other efficiencies or improvements include better forecasting since the provider will be better able to tune offers to the price sensitivity of the prospects, thus increasing the take up rate and increasing the accuracy of forecasting.)
Malsbenden and Phillips are both directed to the analysis of customer data (See Malsbenden at 0015, 0020; Phillips at 0027, 0052). Malsbenden discloses additional elements such as formula calculations can be considered (See Malsbenden at 0102-0107). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malsbenden, which teaches detecting and calculating customer data with the RFM scoring problems in view of Phillips, to efficiently apply analysis of customer data to enhancing the capability to include sensitivity scoring when analyzing customer data. (See Phillips at 0027, 0052).
Referring to Claim 6, Malsbenden teaches the RFM-S scoring process according to claim 5 wherein the equation is defined as (Recency Score * 1000) + (Sensitivity Score * 100) + (Frequency Score * 10) + (Monetary Score) (
Malsbenden: Sec. 0100-0106
Anyone skilled in the art will see the interpretation of the arithmetic; can be mathematically applied to this form of simple calculations. Mathematically using an equation or a formula to performing a marketing model is known to those skilled in the art)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 12/29/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 4 and 5 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
an RFM-S scoring process that allows a digital follow-up to a visit plan of a customer, the RFM-S scoring process comprising:
initiating a flow of data from at least one economy database and a CRM database, the at least one economy database allowing a retrieval of data pertaining to a U.S. dollar rate of exchange and a mortgage loan rate of exchange, the CRM database storing and processing data from the customer;
retrieving data from at least one economy database and the CRM database;
understanding and cleaning retrieved data;
calculating a recency and a sensitivity and a frequency and a monetary score;
using the calculation in an equation;
displaying an RSM-S score obtained from the equation;
sharing the displayed RFM-S score with a sales representative; and
terminating the flow of data.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing customer data, which constitutes methods related to include commercial interaction such as marketing or sales activities; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The database is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Then at pg. 5 the Applicant admission that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the computer itself, i.e. “"at least one server" and the "at least one program"”
(at pg.5 “The present invention uniquely incorporates economic sensitivity as a critical factor. This is pivotal in dynamically changing economic environments. This inclusion allows businesses to assess customer behavior more holistically by factoring in external financial conditions, such as currency fluctuations and mortgage interest rates.”)
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which integrating macroeconomic data into customer scoring will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) 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).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, at pg. 5 Applicant argues “In contrast, the present invention provides a more comprehensive and sophisticated RFM-S scoring system that extends beyond traditional RFM (i.e. Recency, Frequency, Monetary) scoring. The present invention uniquely incorporates economic sensitivity as a critical factor. This is pivotal in dynamically changing economic environments. This inclusion allows businesses to assess customer behavior more holistically by factoring in external financial conditions, such as currency fluctuations and mortgage interest rates.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., provides a more comprehensive and sophisticated RFM-S scoring system that extends beyond traditional RFM (i.e. Recency, Frequency, Monetary) scoring. The present invention uniquely incorporates economic sensitivity as a critical factor. This is pivotal in dynamically changing economic environments. This inclusion allows businesses to assess customer behavior more holistically by factoring in external financial conditions, such as currency fluctuations and mortgage interest rates.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Malsbenden teaches Recency, Frequency, Monetary in combination with Phillips which teaches the analyzing of economic data which includes macroeconomic and the sensitivity score of other economic such as mortgages.
At pg. 6 Applicant argues “In contrast, the present invention leverages a server infrastructure that processes data through mathematical equations and running advanced computations to derive recency, sensitivity, frequency, and monetary scores.; In contrast, the present invention shares RFM-S scores directly with sales representatives. This facilitates immediate and informed decision-making.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., leverages a server infrastructure that processes data through mathematical equations and running advanced computations to derive recency, sensitivity, frequency, and monetary scores.; In contrast, the present invention shares RFM-S scores directly with sales representatives. This facilitates immediate and informed decision-making.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 7 Applicant argues “In contrast, the present invention presents an advanced RFM-S scoring system designed for digital customer follow-up by evaluating purchase frequency, sales potential, and economic sensitivity. The present invention incorporates external macroeconomic indicators, such as currency and mortgage interest rates.; In contrast, the present invention uniquely integrates macroeconomic data, such as U.S. dollar exchange rates and mortgage rates. This enables businesses to assess customer behavior in the context of broader economic conditions. This feature as a crucial dimension to customer evaluation. In contrast, the present invention employs a server infrastructure that processes CRM and economic data through advanced mathematical equations to derive recency, frequency, monetary and sensitivity scores..”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., In contrast, the present invention presents an advanced RFM-S scoring system designed for digital customer follow-up by evaluating purchase frequency, sales potential, and economic sensitivity. The present invention incorporates external macroeconomic indicators, such as currency and mortgage interest rates.; In contrast, the present invention uniquely integrates macroeconomic data, such as U.S. dollar exchange rates and mortgage rates. This enables businesses to assess customer behavior in the context of broader economic conditions. This feature as a crucial dimension to customer evaluation.; In contrast, the present invention employs a server infrastructure that processes CRM and economic data through advanced mathematical equations to derive recency, frequency, monetary and sensitivity scores.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Phillips describes the analyzing and processing of economic data which includes macroeconomic and the sensitivity score of other economic such as mortgages rates and USD currency. Also, both Malsbenden and Phillips disclose the use of calculation to process data, which includes Malsbenden use of recency, frequency, monetary data, and Phillips use of economic data and sensitivity scores. Lastly, anyone skilled in the art will see the interpretation of the arithmetic; can be mathematically applied to this form of simple calculations. Mathematically using an equation or a formula to performing a marketing model is known to those skilled in the art.
At pg. 8 Applicant argues “In contrast, the present invention utilizes a structured multi-step process including the steps of: (1) data retrieval from CRM and economic databases; (2) data cleaning and preparation; (3) calculation of RFM-S scores; (4) display and sharing of results with sales representatives; and (5) completion of the scoring process.; In contrast, the present invention delivers results directly to sales representatives. This provides a real-time, actionable insight in order to enhance customer engagement and sales strategies.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., utilizes a structured multi-step process including the steps of: (1) data retrieval from CRM and economic databases; (2) data cleaning and preparation; (3) calculation of RFM-S scores; (4) display and sharing of results with sales representatives; and (5) completion of the scoring process.; This provides a real-time, actionable insight in order to enhance customer engagement and sales strategies.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gilbert., W.O. Pub. WO2008064343, (discussing the modeling of customer interest on e-commerce products).
Saboo et al., Using Big Data To Model Time-Varying Effects For Marketing Resource (Re) Allocation, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=02767783&AN=119473690&h=Q%2BoRbzOCkTaeFrs4iHNgYuHu%2B8J4%2BfdXBsD1zLFweS9ZZ22xBf51j9ssjYjgl2T9MSEx0F3b0xyermPRtNQsbw%3D%3D&crl=c, MIS quarterly, 2016 (discussing the processing of customer data).
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 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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights