DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed 11/10/25. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, and 15-17 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 have been considered as follows.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The previously pending objection to the claim 17 is withdrawn in response toApplicant's claim amendment.
The previously pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments. Examiner submits that while a system for improving speed and accuracy including at least a first and second subset of computing devices is provided, there is no positive recitation of how the system transforms or changes the nature of the claim into something patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that the claims, even as amended, are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter. Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the subject matter that is not directed towards an abstract idea but rather towards improving speed and accuracy of performing dynamic segmentation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to the specification to illustrate that the claimed invention serves as a technical improvement that increases the speed and precision of market segmentation using specific machine learning techniques by minimizing the need for human intervention and accelerating the decision-making process for clients, however Examiner notes that the language of the specification should not be read into the breadth of the claims during examination. Regarding the actual claimed language, Examiner submits that the specific unique technical features/advancements of the invention described by Applicant do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the features of at least performing a clustering operation, performing a fit operation, iterating through the first plurality of questions and computing a metric for how well a set of questions predicts assignments to the plurality of clusters, and performing a hyperparameter optimization operation are drawn to performing mathematical calculations. Additionally, the features of iterating through the first plurality of questions and computing a metric for how well a set of questions predicts assignments to the plurality of clusters and yielding a second plurality of questions, performing a hyperparameter optimization operation to determine an optimal set of hyperparameters to use to assign membership of a user to a cluster, sending second plurality of questions and optimal set of hyperparameters from the first subset to a distinct second subset, administering a second survey to a second plurality of users, and using the optimal set of hyperparameters to assignment membership of a user to a cluster are drawn to making decisions regarding the analysed data and may be construed as commercial interactions, including advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors or business relations, or as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. These features or concepts all may be construed as falling under certain groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, in view of this interpretation, Examiner submits that the unique features and advancements of Applicant’s inventions are in fact not inextricably tied to computer technology as they do not require a computer nor do they make improvements to the computer technology itself.
Additionally, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. Although the invention teaches of a system and computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, there is also no physical transformation or improvement to the technology that would be more than the idea of itself. Furthermore, in the current language, the claim is merely implemented or executed using one or more computing devices and therefore does not improve upon the technology or functionality of the computer beyond the abstract idea. In other words, Examiner submits that the inventive concept, i.e. an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept (of an abstract idea itself)”, is unable to be determined within the limitations as claimed.
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 a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 recite(s) a method, a system, and a computer program product for dynamic market segmentation. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of automating decision making for instances recorded within an organization, by specifically “performing…a clustering operation on a set of answers to a first survey…”; “performing…a fit operation on the set of answers to the first survey, yielding a prediction score for each question…”; “…iterating…through the first plurality of questions in order of their prediction scores…and computing a metric for how well a set of questions including all questions already iterated over predicts assignments to the plurality of clusters, stopping iteration once the metric exceeds a threshold minimum metric, yielding a second plurality of questions, the second plurality of questions being fewer than the first plurality of questions”; “performing…a hyperparameter optimization operation to determine an optimal set of hyperparameters to use to assign membership of a user to a cluster of the plurality of clusters…”; “sending the second plurality of questions and the optimal set of hyperparameters from the first subset to a distinct second subset of the set…”; “administering…the second plurality of questions in a second survey to a second plurality of users”; and “using…the optimal set of hyperparameters to assign membership of a user from the second plurality of users to a cluster of the plurality of clusters…”. The limitations of at least “performing…a clustering operation…”; “performing…a fit operation on the set of answers…”; “…iterating…through the first plurality of questions…and computing a metric for how well a set of questions…predicts assignments to the plurality of clusters…”; and “performing…a hyperparameter optimization operation…” are drawn to performing calculations relating to dynamic market segmentation, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Furthermore, the limitations of at least “…iterating…through the first plurality of questions…and computing a metric for how well a set of questions…predicts assignments to the plurality of clusters, stopping iteration once the metric exceeds a threshold minimum metric, yielding a second plurality of questions…”; “performing…a hyperparameter optimization operation to determine an optimal set of hyperparameters to use to assign membership of a user to a cluster of the plurality of clusters…”; “sending the second plurality of questions and the optimal set of hyperparameters from the first subset to a distinct second subset of the set…”; “administering…the second plurality of questions in a second survey to a second plurality of users”; and “using the optimal set of hyperparameters to assign membership of a user from a second plurality of users to a cluster of the plurality of clusters…”., as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of dynamic market segmentation. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing dynamic market segmentation, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional elements include one or more computing devices including processing circuitry. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, 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, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). Specifically, claims 2, 10, and 18 describe details regarding performing the fit operation. Claims 3, 11, and 19 describe details regarding performing the hyperparameter optimization operation. Claims 4, 12, and 20 describe details regarding performing the grid search using logistic regression. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of dynamic market segmentation, which falls within the abstract idea groupings of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites additional element drawn to a set of one or more computing devices including processing circuitry to perform the steps of the invention. The computing device(s) and the processing circuitry in the claimed steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts 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. 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 and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. In view of the recent Berkheimer decision and the Step 2B analysis of the above rejection, Examiner is reiterating the fact that the dynamic market segmentation as claimed is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. Said conclusion is made based upon a factual determination supported by the specification, which states that the claimed invention is merely implemented using any kind of computing device, e.g. any kind of computer like a personal computer, laptop, workstation, etc. (see page 5, lines 28-31), including a method, a system, and a computer program product for dynamic market segmentation. Furthermore, Examiner relies on the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., 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) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In contrast to the Enfish decision where the claims focused on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, the present case is drawn to certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are to be allowed upon the resolution of the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wood et al. (US 2018/0018686 A1) teaches of a system and method for creating segmentation of a population.
Choi et al. (US 6,745,184 B1) teaches of a method and system for clustering optimization and applications.
Tanuwijaya et al. (NPL - 2021) teaches of mobile customer behavior predictive analysis for targeting Netflix potential customer.
Feng et al. (US 2019/0325343 A1) teaches of machine learning using partial order hypergraphs.
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 ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625