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 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 09/23/2025. In the amendments claims 1, 6-10, and 15-19 are amended. Claims 21-27 were previously canceled. No claims are newly added or withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the practical application integration of Step 2A, Prong Two in a form similar to claim 1 of Example 42. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the instant claims are not analogous to USPTO 01/07/2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Idea 42, Claim 1. In the analysis of claim at step 2A, Prong 2, it states “the additional elements recite a specific over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” While the analysis point out many additional element – “storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The patent eligibility hinges on the “standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user”. There is no step analogues to this standardizing information format regardless of the input format.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Since the independent claims recites specific improvements resulting from the combination of elements, the independent claims are integrated into a practical application such that the independent claims are not direct to a judicial exception. Remarks p. 15.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s positions for at least the reasons given above at 3.a. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-9 are to a device (machine), claims 10-18 are to a method (process), and claims 19 and 20 are to a medium (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
[Claim 1] (Currently amended) A housing business assistance device comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory,
the processor performing operations, the operations comprising:
receiving external data from a database;
classifying target customers into each segment of a plurality of layers using the received external data;
calculating a first difference between a value indicating a customer of a target company and a value indicating a customer of a company other than the target company for each segment obtained by classifying the target customers of a housing-related business into a plurality of layers;
determining a transition destination segment for which measures are to be taken using the first difference;
determining a transition destination determination means configured to determine determining a transition destination segment to which the value indicating a customer of the target company in the target segment transitions;
deriving one or more variables serving as keys in the measures using the target segment and the transition destination segment as inputs; and
extracting one or more measure candidates associated with the one or more variables; and
transmitting, to a plurality of terminals, the one or more measure candidates to output, to a plurality of users associated with the plurality of terminals, a plan for implementing the transition of customers from the target segment to the transition destination segment.
Applicant’s invention is direct towards market research for the conversion of customers. Specifically, the understanding the various segments of the markets to find what cause a customer to transition to a target segment, using survey information - variables serving as keys in the measures using the target segment and the transition destination segment – see Spec. [23], [93], and [110].
The Specification provides that the claimed target segment is supported by, “target determination unit13 determines a target segment for which measures are to be taken using the difference (first difference) acquired from the calculation unit12. For example, referring to Fig. 5, the ratio of general customers of the target company is 5%, the ratio of general customers of the competitor company is 8%, and there is a difference of 3%. This is the largest as compared with the difference between other segments. That is, it can be said that it is important to increase the ratio of the general customer segment in order to compete with competitor companies. Therefore, the target determination unit13 determines the target segment for which measures should be taken as "general customer".” (Spec. [54]).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification provides the support for the transition destination segment as “the transition destination segment is, for example, a segment adjacent to an upper level of the target segment. For example, referring to Fig. 4, the segments are arranged as excellent, general, and separation in order from the top, but excellent is above general. Therefore, the transition destination determination unit14 determines the transition destination segment as "excellent" in order to transition the customer of the general layer to the "excellent" layer.”. (Spec. [54]). It is noted that Fig. 4 simply shows the segment percentage breakdown for the target company, see pyramid on the left of figure 5.
Finally, the specification provides support for the claimed “a plan for implementing the transition of customers from the target segment to the transition destination segment”. See specification [133] “derivation unit44 . . . outputs one or more variables estimated to be highly related to the movement of the customer from the target segment to the transition destination segment.” [134] “extraction unit . . . extract measure candidates” and [75] “if the key variable is "quality satisfaction level interior", the following are output as the measure candidates: posting many images of interior on the website of the target company; sending a collection of images of interior materials of new products or a collection of images of interior of an existing house to excellent customers or general customers; planning an open house tour to visit a customer's house with interior high in customer satisfaction level.”
The Office finds when read in the light of the specification the bold italics elements of the claim are directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process. MPEP 2106.04 provides “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” The claimed limitations can be practically performed in the human mind or with the assistance of pen and paper. A human user could given the external data classify the customers in to segments, calculating a difference for the segments between the target company and other companies, determine a target segment, determine a transition destination segment, derive/decide which variable are key to the transitions, and plan which candidate should implement the variables for transitions.
The Office further finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. The invention is for converting customers – which the Office finds to be a type of fundamental economic practice/principal. Where the purpose of most business is to convert people into customer or better customers. It is noted that MPEP 2106.04 provides “"fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce”.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The “receiving” and “transmitting” elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and outputting respectively.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Further it is noted that the claimed hardware components are general in nature rather than special purpose, see for example Spec. [139] and fig. 15.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 20 define the layers, which found to be non-functional labels for the classification segments/layers. The definitions adds to the identified abstract ideas, of classifying the customers without providing significantly more or practical application.
Claims 4 and 13 defines the preference of the customers which adds to the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or practical application.
Claims 5 and 14 adds to the calculation of the differences to determine additional information about the segments, which adds to the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or practical application.
Claims 7 and 16 further defined the deriving step, which adds to the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or practical application.
Claims 8 and 17 further defines the extracting steps, which adds to the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or practical application.
Claims 9 and 18 further defines the transition destination segment and target segment, which adds to the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evans et al (US 2013/0159054 A1) teaches the system 100 may calculate average scores for a plurality of industry verticals. It is noteworthy that an average score may include any of an average product commitment score, an average brand commitment score, and an average customer relevance score. These "average" scores represent an average of corresponding scores for competitors of the first entity. Thus, a user can compare their data against an aggregate/average score relative to their competition.
Fairfield et al (US 8,214,238 B1) teaches customer development achieved for specific target plan with activities to capture audience shoppers Amended Customer and Channel development plan with activities aiming to capture shoppers.
Kapoor et al (US 10,467,635 B1) teaches method includes the steps of automatically (i) determining data points for the relevant data volumes associated with the one or more customer data, (ii) creating the one or more peer groups, using standard clustering algorithms to segment the one or more customers into the peer groups based on identified clusters of data points, and (iii) updating (a) the one or more cross customer metrics, and (b) the one or more peer groups in the cross customer store when a new customer is setup.
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623