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 .
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 non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media. Claim 16 recites a system.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of recommending subscription services. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
monitoring a usage of a first subscription service by a user to capture a first set of data regarding a consumption behavior of the user;
capturing a second set of data regarding the user;
updating a user profile of the user with the first set of data and the second set of data, wherein the user profile of the user is a first component of the subscription service;
capturing a third set of data regarding a financial aspect of the first subscription service, wherein the financial aspect is a second component of the subscription service;
analyzing the first set of data and the second set of data in relation to the third set of data;
optimizing at least one of the first component and the second component of the subscription service to build a second subscription service personalized to the user; and
outputting the second subscription service to the user as a recommendation.
Claims 10 and 16 recite equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite subscription recommendation, i.e., commercial interactions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These additional computer-related elements merely invoke such additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 10 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 10 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 10 and 16 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 10 and 16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240289863 to Lewis et al. discloses systems and methods for providing recommendations. An AI system employing one or more of the present techniques may incorporate a personalized pricing model into the conversational AI system. This variation would take into account various factors such as user behavior, engagement, and other data to dynamically determine the appropriate pricing for each individual user. The conversational AI system could then make recommendations for subscriptions or micro-payments based on this personalized pricing model, offering a more tailored and engaging experience for users. The system would continuously update the pricing in real-time based on changes in user behavior, ensuring that the user always receives the most relevant and accurate pricing information.
US 20240211988 to Annichiarico discloses a collaborative subscription marketplace and loyalty platform system comprising: a system where brands can sell personalized subscription offers, with contingent pricing, to subscribers of other brands on the platform via unique marketplace rewards pages created individually for each brand; a system where brands can link their subscribers subscription discounts directly to their brand; a system and dashboard where subscription service providers can a) create and control a marketplace rewards page where the brands subscribers can purchase personalized offers from other brands, b) create personalized offers with unique prices for consumers based on how much the consumer is already spending on other services, c) sell those personalized, contingent subscription offers dynamically on the platform via marketplace rewards pages of other brands, d) access and implement data and recommendations for optimizing pricing, revenue and retention strategies, and e) review data analytics and implement recommended pricing, audience targeting, cross promotion, advertising, and retention strategies; a system and dashboard where consumers can a) purchase personalized offers tailored specific for them based on how much they spend already on other subscription services b) manage all their subscriptions in one place c) port existing subscriptions onto the platform for management and verified spending purposes.
US 11423373 to Book et al. discloses an intelligent subscription identification using transaction data. For instance, by providing a recommendation to a merchant based on customer purchase behavior, the merchant is more likely to convert a customer into a repeat customer or even a subscriber and enable merchants to dynamically offer subscriptions on the fly based on what their customers are purchasing, thereby reducing the friction of generating and/or managing subscriptions. For customers, techniques described herein reduce friction associated with regular purchases and, in some examples, enable customers to subscribe to items or services through subscriptions that are customized and/or personalized for them. Additional benefits and efficiencies are described throughout this disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights