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
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 23 February 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth infra.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully argues that partitioning and organizing data into two or more groups are generic computer functions. Further, the asserted improvement to “the functioning of the computing system itself by enabling rapid, parallel application of rules to large data streams at scale” does not constitute a technical improvement. Enabling rapid, parallel application of rules to large data streams at scale is inherent to parallel processing. The present claims merely implement parallel processing using conventional techniques, rather than improving the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner welcomes Applicant to contact Examiner for a telephonic interview to further prosecution.
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-7, 9-13, and 21 are directed to a method, claims 14-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention describes an abstract idea of utilizing rules to output a report comprising customer traits. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving a user configuration of business logic, wherein the business logic defines criteria for selecting customers based on one or more customer traits;
processing, the user configuration of business logic, into representative of a rule configured to identify the one or more customer traits from customer data;
into the rule;
deploying the rule to a rules that includes one or more rules maintained;
receiving customer data of a plurality of customers at a first point of time;
partitioning the customer data into two or more groups of customer data based on at least one of a data source, a data type, or customer identifiers of the plurality of customers;
organizing the customer data into a form used by a rules to process the customer data in parallel by the two or more groups;
simultaneously applying the one or more rules including the rule deployed to the rule to the two or more groups of customer data to identify the one or more customer traits in the customer data for one or more customers of the plurality of customers; and
outputting a report comprising a plurality of customer identifiers for the plurality of customers and, for a particular customer identifier for a particular customer, one or more indicators of which customer traits are associated with the particular customer.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 describes the abstract idea of utilizing rules to output a report comprising customer traits as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite receiving a user configuration of business logic, generating, and based on the user configuration of business logic, a rule configured to identify one or more customer traits from customer data, deploying the rule to a rules [bank] that includes one or more rules maintained, receiving customer data of a plurality of customers at a first point of time, partitioning the customer data into two or more groups of customer data based on at least one of a data source, a data type, or customer identifiers of the plurality of customers, organizing the customer data into a form used by a rules to process the customer data in parallel by the two or more groups, simultaneously applying the one or more rules to the customer data to identify the one or more customer traits in the customer data for one or more customers of the plurality of customers, and outputting a report comprising a plurality of customer identifiers for the plurality of customers and, for a particular customer identifier for a particular customer, one or more indicators of which customer traits are associated with the particular customer, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 includes the additional elements of performing the steps via a user interface, by a computing system, a database, and performing the steps of processing logic into code, compiling the code, and using parallel processing. The additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because it is merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, the 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional element recited in the independent claim 1 is recited and described in a generic manner and merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or recited at a high level of generality and thus does not amount to significantly more. As such, the additional element, considered individually and in combination, does not provide an inventive concept.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 14 and 20 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 14 includes the additional elements of memory, and one or more programmable processors in communication with the memory and configured to and independent claim 20 includes the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of memory, and one or more programmable processors in communication with the memory and configured to in claim 14 and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to in claim 20, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 14 and 20 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 14 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 14 and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 14 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-19, depending from claims 1 and 14, respectively do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-13, and 15-19 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of user interface (claims 2, 3, 4, and 13), user computing device (claims 2, 3, 4, and 13), software development (claims 2, 3, and 4), data stream (claims 5, and 15), parallel processing (claim 6, and 16), and non-relational database, customer analytics platform, and corporate data records (claim 7). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the user interface (claims 2, 3, 4, and 13), user computing device (claims 2, 3, 4, and 13), software development (claims 2, 3, and 4), data stream (claims 5, and 15), parallel processing (claim 6, and 16), and non-relational database, customer analytics platform, and corporate data records (claim 7) as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-19, and 21 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-7, 13, and 15-16, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 9-12, 17-19, and 21 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-13, 15-19, and 21 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if this rejection were overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the features of applicant's invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL: Capturing and sharing domain knowledge with business rules lessons learned from a global software vendor discloses using business rules to help customers US Patent: US 8417715 B1 discloses using business rules to develop models.
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.0
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER V LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM 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, JEFFREY A. SMITH can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/JENNIFER V LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights