Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 12/16/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea, such as a mental process or mathematics, because, none of the following claim limitations could be "practically performed in the human mind." (pg. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) are performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, profiling entities, defining micro-segments in a multi-dimensional cube, assigning strategies to segments, etc., which encompass collecting and analyzing data (e.g. observation and evaluation). The generic computer components are merely automating the limitations (automating steps that could be performed in the human mind or with a pen/paper). As illustrated in Spec ¶0034, computers programmed to autonomously perform the claimed limitations or user/planner may perform the task.
Applicant argues, “ Nor are Applicant’s claims directed to methods of organizing human activity.” (pg. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to sales and marketing behavior. For example, profiling entities, defining micro-segments and assigning strategies for targeting customers or products illustrates sales or marketing behavior (Spec see ¶0003, targeting customers). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues, “ …Applicants respectfully submit that Applicants' claims are not
"directed to" a judicial exception, and thus are patent eligible, for at least the reason that Applicants' claims as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” (pgs. 9-10)
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a computer system comprising a processor, a memory, crm, a supply chain transaction system and a database These are generic computer components (Spec ¶0033-¶0034) recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions.
For instance the steps of receiving data from entities, monitoring data from the supply chain transaction system, a learning feedback loop refining the micro-segments and updating tactics and adjusting the implementing is data gathering activity. The steps of profiling entities, defining micro-segments and assigning strategies involves analyzing data. The step of implementing tactics is updating systems which is data gathering activity.
Additionally, the monitoring for unplanned events and changed conditions (by a computer), and in response the learning feedback loop refines the micro-segments and updates tactics (collecting, analyzing and updating data) is similar to selecting the best variables to achieve specific goals. The refining and updating (e.g. selecting the best tactic) can be done using a pen and paper based on the data collected in the monitoring step (collecting and updating data). The autonomously without human intervention is performing the steps (e.g. observation and evaluation) using a generic computer (“apply it”). Further, the Specification at ¶0034 discloses that these steps can be performed by a user/planner, thus illustrating a human element to the analyzing and updating steps. The claimed limitations could reasonably be done by a person using a computer as a tool.
Therefore, the claim is abstract.
Applicant argues, “ Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention
operates in an iterative, autonomous fashion to gather and monitor data as part of a learning process from which automatic adjustments are made. As a result of this iterative, learning approach the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and is patent eligible subject matter.” (pgs. 13-14)
As stated above the learning feedback loop refines the micro-segments and updates tactics is essentially collecting, analyzing and updating data (data gathering activity) using generic components. For instance one can pick the best tactic based on observations (e.g. monitoring data) using the human mind or pen/paper. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues, “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's claimed invention, among other things, by updating and configuring the supply chain transaction systems, provides a technological improvement in the operation of supply chain transaction systems.” (pg. 14)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no support in the Specification or the claims of an improvement in a technology or a technical field. The instant claims are directed to steps associated with collecting, analyzing and updating data to target customers which has been found to be abstract (e.g. Mental Processes or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Here, there appears to be an improved business process for analyzing large amounts of data to target customers or products using various strategies (see ¶0003).
Applicant argues, “ Applicant respectfully submits that as in Ex parte Desjardins, Applicant's claimed invention provides technical benefits over existing systems, as discussed above, and is accordingly patent eligible subject matter.” (pg. 14)
Examiner notes that instant application is not similar to Ex parte Desjardins. In Desjardin decision it was found that machine learning inventions that improve model training efficiency, reducing storage or improving accuracy are not categorically excluded from patentability. The instant claims are directed to steps associated with collecting, analyzing and updating data to target customers which has been found to be abstract (e.g. Mental Processes or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, as stated above the claimed invention appears to be an improved business process for analyzing large amounts of data to target customers or products using various strategies (see ¶0003). This does not amount to an improvement in technology or a technical field.
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 without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receives data… from one or more entities by a network connected with supply chain transaction systems;
profiles the one or more entities according to one or more cost-to-serve intervals and one or more value intervals;
defines one or more micro-segments of a multi-dimensional cube such that each micro-segment comprises an overlap of a segment of a first dimension and a segment of a second dimension;
assigns… one or more strategies to the one or more micro-segments based on a cost- to-serve interval and a value interval of entities associated with the one or more micro-segments;
implements predefined tactics to achieve the one or more strategies assigned to the one or more micro-segments by updating the supply chain transaction systems;
monitors, …, data from the supply chain transaction systems indicating unplanned events and changed conditions and in response to the monitoring, a learning feedback loop autonomously refines the one or more micro-segments and updates the predefined tactics to achieve the one or more strategies…; and
adjusts the implementing of the predefined tactics by further updating and configuring at least one of the supply chain transaction systems.
The limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to marketing or sales activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, profiling entities, defining micro-segments and assigning strategies for targeting customers or products illustrates sales or marketing behavior. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes as the steps involve collecting (receiving data, monitoring) and analyzing data (profiles entities, defines micro-segments) which is related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to supply chain transaction systems, Claim 3 is directed to associating strategies with tactics, Claim 4 is directed to the multi-dimensional cube, Claim 5 is directed to subdividing or segmenting one or more dimensions, Claim 6 is directed to profiling dimensions and Claim 7 is directed to a multi-dimensional cube. Dependent Claims 9-14 and 16-10 are substantially similar to Claims 2-7 and encompass the same abstract concepts. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer system comprising a processor, a memory, a supply chain transaction system and a database (multi-dimensional cube). Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a computer and a supply chain transaction system. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, a supply chain transaction system, and a computer. These are generic computer components (Spec ¶0033-¶0034) recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions. Examiner notes, the multi-dimensional cube is generically recited as performing as it normally would.
For instance the steps of receiving data from entities, monitoring data from the supply chain transaction system, a learning feedback loop refining the micro-segments and updating tactics and adjusting the implementing is data gathering activity. The steps of profiling entities, defining micro-segments and assigning strategies involves analyzing data. The step of adjusting the implementation of predefined tactics by updating and configuring the supply chain transaction systems is merely updating systems which is data gathering activity. The claimed steps of collecting, analyzing and updating data (e.g. setting parameters) do not provide for a meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions (e.g. collecting and analyzing data) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Srinivasan et al. (US 2002/0045739) discloses real-time experiments on samples of the customer population to determine customer market sensitivities. This information can then be used to determine real-time optimal promotion and marketing strategies for an entire customer population or for selected segments of the customer population. In addition, merchants may learn from the online experiments, and apply this learning to offline counterpart market strategies.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625