DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
In response to Final Communications received 9/25/2025, Applicant, on 12/23/2025, amended Claims 21, 28, and 35, and cancelled Claims 25, 32, and 39. Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40 are pending in this case, are considered in this application, and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the amended limitations of “updating the spend behavior model based on the determined likelihood of the attrition of the current spend behavior in response to determining the likelihood of an attrition is inconsistent with the spend behavior model” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, by stating paragraphs [0051] and [0056], and stating that there an improvement to other technology or technical fields by real-time assessing the accuracy of the spend behavior model based on the current spend behavior and the determined likelihood of attrition, and that this enhances the technical field of behavioral modeling and predictive analytics by providing a more precise and responsive mechanism for forecasting missed transactions and potential customer attrition. Examiner disagrees as behavioral modeling and predictive analytics are not a technology or technological field, but rather a managerial one, as modeling of behavior and prediction of behavior is a managerial field, and the claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as the device, processor, medium, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they merely are collecting, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as a device and medium, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to a device/computer, as the device merely does what it is intended to do, nor is there any improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – Applicant asserts that the combination of Falkenborg, Basu, and Pathak does not teach the amended limitations of the claims, particularly the amended limitations of the Claims. Examiner disagrees as Falkenborg teaches updating the spend behavior model based on the determined likelihood of the attrition of the current spend behavior as in [0285] where the attrition model (spend behavior) is updated periodically with the current/recent transaction data and other data, and determining a likelihood of an attrition of the current spend behavior based on the missed payment transaction as in [0391] where an abrupt change is detected, which is an inconsistency, which is used to determine the attrition as in [0216] where attrition is predictively determined. Basu teaches transactions which are determined to be inconsistent with the model, such as missing information as in [0479] where transactions that are associated with entity are inconsistent such as when they are below a threshold as in [0478] or few or less than predicted as in [0477]), and in response to determining the likelihood of an attrition is inconsistent with the spend behavior model as in [0477-478] where when a threshold is reached an action occurs. This combination teaches the amended limitations of the Claims.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the combination of Falkenborg, Basu, and Pathak teaches the amended limitations of the Claims, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 103.
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.
Alice – Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are directed at limitations for receiving time stamped tracking data associated with a device, wherein the time stamped tracking data includes historical interactions associated with a consumer (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a current spend behavior of the consumer based on the time stamped tracking data (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), comparing the current spend behavior of the consumer with a spend behavior model (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), identifying a deviation from an expected transaction behavior based on the comparing, wherein the deviation includes an absence of a time-correlated transaction within a predicted transaction (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a likelihood of an attrition of the current spend behavior based on the identified deviation (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and updating the spend behavior model based on the determined likelihood of the attrition of the current spend behavior in response to determining the likelihood of an attrition is inconsistent with the spend behavior model (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing payments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for managing transactions, a Commercial Interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a device, memory, one or more processors, and a computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction, i.e. managing transactions. For example, determining a current spend behavior of a consumer based on a time stamped tracking data encompasses any manager, supervisor, floor manager, etc. looking at a customer who comes in regularly, looking at their receipts which are time-stamped, and estimating how much they will spend, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The device, memory, processors, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0035] Still referring to FIG. 2A, the purchaser 200 utilizes a networked user device 206 to communicate with one or more online merchants 204 through a communications network 218 (e.g., the Internet, a secure network, etc.). The networked user device 206 can be any suitable computing device that facilitates network communications, such as, for example, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a smart television, a smart appliance, a mobile computing device, a gaming device, a wearable computing device, and so forth.”
Which states that any type of suitable computing device can be used, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 22-24, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36-38, and 40 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a database which is highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22, 24, 26, 27-29, 31, 33, 34-36, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenborg (U.S. Publication No. 2011/031,3835) in view of Basu (2013/019,7991) in further view of Pathak (U.S. Publication No. 2012/015,8455).
Regarding Claims 21, 28, and 35, Falkenborg, a system and method to prevent potential attrition of consumer payment accounts, teaches a method comprising:
receiving time tracking data, wherein the time stamped tracking data includes historical interactions associated with a consumer ([0088] a historical transaction is received based on the [0101] day, time, and IP of every transaction, and the historical tracking records contain [0330] date time of the transaction)
determining a current spend behavior of a consumer based on the time of the tracked and historical data ([0298-307] an attrition model is created and scored using the past transaction data based on the data of a particular time (spend behavior model) which is over a specific period of time as in [0220]);
comparing the current spend behavior of the consumer with a spend behavior model ([0393-394] spending behavior and pattern and the profiles that are made from these observations are compared to spending pattern and predictive results as in [0222])
determining a likelihood of an attrition of the current spend behavior based on the missed payment transaction ([0391] an abrupt change is detected, which is an inconsistency, which is used to determine the attrition as in [0216] where attrition is predictively determined), and
updating the spend behavior model based on the determined likelihood of the attrition of the current spend behavior ([0285] the attrition model (spend behavior) is updated periodically with the current/recent transaction data and other data).
Although Falkenborg determining a change velocity based on comparing the current spend behavior with the spend behavior model, which is a change/identified deviation in the rate of the amount of spend predicted to occur ([0225-239] the change velocity is used to determine the behavior, which detects a change in spending volume as in [0225], which is a comparison with previous six months and an identified deviation from the spend over time), it does not explicitly state this is a missed or absent payment transaction, or that the information is time stamped.
Basu, a system and method to process payments based on payment deals, teaches transactions which are determined to be inconsistent with the model, such as missing information ([0479] transactions that are associated with entity are inconsistent such as when they are below a threshold as in [0478] or few or less than predicted as in [0477]), and in response to determining the likelihood of an attrition is inconsistent with the spend behavior model ([0477-478] where when a threshold is reached an action occurs) and
Basu teaches when there are no purchase details requested or absent from the received information as in [0216]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the change velocity which is predicted of Falkenborg with the inconsistency detection of Basu as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to retaining customers and processing transactions, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the effectiveness of advertisements by using the more accurate information and thus increase sales as taught in [0148] of Basu.
Neither Falkenborg nor Basu teaches that the transactions are time-stamped.
Pathak, a system and method for estimating value of user’s social influence on other users and performing micro-transactions, teaches micro-transactions between users which are [0060] time-stamped.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the received transaction time data of the combination of Falkenborg and Basu with the explicit time-stamped data of Pathak as the prior art are all analogous art which teach solutions to retaining customers and performing transactions, and the combination is a substitution of explicitly stating time-stamped data of Pathak with the time data for transactions of both Falkenborg and Basu, and this would lead to an improved customer experience as taught in [0053] of Pathak which would lead to an increase in profitability through advertising as taught in [0072] of Pathak.
Examiner notes Falkenborg teaches a system, data storage device, processor, and computer readable medium ([0084] system with memory, storage devices, processors, and media also in [0087]).
Regarding Claims 22, 29, and 36, Falkenborg teaches, further comprising:
receiving, in a database ([0204] database in conjunction with a system), environmental and/or behavioral data associated with transaction data of the consumer ([0318] the behavioral data (purchase behavior) is determined/received from transaction data which is past payment transactions as in [0324]); and
generating the spend behavior model of the consumer based on an analysis of the environmental and/or behavioral data associated with the transaction data of the consumer ([0298-307] an attrition model is created and scored using the past transaction data (spend behavior model) which is over a specific period of time as in [0220]).
Although the combination of Falkenborg and Basu teaches analysis of multiple types of behavioral data and other data as above, it does not explicitly state environmental data.
Pathak teaches using environment data for use in a prediction model as in [0031] (and also tracking of user activity in [0024]), thus the combination teaching analysis of the environmental and/or behavioral data associated with the transaction of the consumer.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the prediction of attrition using customer behavior of Falkenborg with the prediction of a customer LTV of Pathak as both are analogous art which teach solutions to retaining customers, and the combination is a substitution of the environmental data being used in Pathak for the behavioral data received and calculated in Falkenberg, which would lead to an improved customer experience as taught in [0053] of Pathak which would lead to an increase in profitability through advertising as taught in [0072] of Pathak.
Regarding Claims 24, 31, and 38, Falkenborg teaches wherein the current spend behavior including habitually purchasing from a merchant and/or group of merchants (Falkenborg teaches a consistent behavior of a cardholder as in [0374] as well as a characteristic of transaction/customer profiles to be their merchant propensity, i.e. their willingness to utilize a certain merchant, as in [0052]);
Regarding Claims 26, 33, and 40, Although Falkenborg teaches predicting attrition using the likelihood of the attrition of the current spend behavior, a behavior/attrition model, and recent behavior as in Claim 1 and Claim 4 above, it does not teach predicting a customer lifetime value.
Pathak teaches prediction of a lifetime value, LTV, as in [0060] based on data.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the prediction of attrition using customer behavior of Falkenborg with the prediction of a customer LTV of Pathak as both are analogous art which teach solutions to retaining customers, and the combination is a substitution of the data being used in Pathak for LTV calculation for the data received and calculated in Falkenberg, which would lead to an improved customer experience as taught in [0053] of Pathak which would lead to an increase in profitability through advertising as taught in [0072] of Pathak.
Regarding Claims 27 and 34, Falkenborg teaches wherein transaction data is data electronically received from one or more merchants to effectuate an electronic transfer of funds via an electronic payment network [0432-433] transaction data includes an exchange of fund and are transferred electronically over a network from a merchant account).
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenborg (U.S. Publication No. 2011/031,3835) in view of Basu (2013/019,7991) in view of Pathak (U.S. Publication No. 2012/015,8455) in further view of Reisman (U.S. Publication No. 2014/000,6309).
Regarding Claims 23, 30, and 37, Falkenborg teaches further comprising:
receiving transaction data of one or more current payment transactions of the consumer ([0318] the behavioral data (purchase behavior) is determined/received from transaction data which include the [0072] which is a current transaction used to update the transaction profiles used for the model as in [0053]);
Although Falkenborg teaches generating GUID (which as described in Applicant’s specification could be considered tokens as in [0029] where they are tracking components) payment tokens based on the transaction data of one or more current payment transactions of the consumer, affiliating the one or more current payment transactions of the consumer to one or more of the payment GUIDs ([0115-116] the GUID/token is matched to the current transaction), it does not explicitly state this is a token.
Reisman teaches generation and use of anonymous tokens or identifiers for each transaction as in [0166-168] where every current transaction uses this process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the GUID of transactions of the combination of Falkenborg, Pathak, and Basu with the tokenization of transactions of Reisman as they are analogous art which all teach solutions in predicting behaviors of consumers as it pertains to a product or a service, it is old and well-known in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to tokenize transactions for anonymity and security purposes, and the combination would lead to an increase in value to the post service market data and thus improve efficiency and pricing, increasing profits, as taught in [0100] of Reisman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140006309 A1
Reisman; Richard
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING DATA FOR AN ITEM
US 20130197991 A1
Basu; Gourab et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS PAYMENTS BASED ON PAYMENT DEALS
US 20120158455 A1
Pathak; Nishith et al.
ESTIMATING VALUE OF USER'S SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON OTHER USERS OF COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEM
US 20110313835 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Prevent Potential Attrition of Consumer Payment Account
US 20210279747 A1
BADGER; Brent et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING CONSUMER ELECTRONIC SPEND BEHAVIOR TO PREDICT ATTRITION
US 20200234321 A1
Urban; Michael P. et al.
COST ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING ANOMALOUS COST SIGNALS
US 20170201779 A1
Publicover; Mark W. et al.
COMPUTERIZED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING CUSTOMIZED ENTERTAINMENT CONTENT
US 20170200192 A1
DeAngelo; Scott Wayne et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PREDICTED CONSUMER SPEND BASED ON HISTORICAL PURCHASE ACTIVITY PROGRESSIONS
US 20170124580 A1
Sharma; Geetika et al.
Methods and Apparatus for Identifying Customer Segments from Transaction Data
US 20170098234 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO REWARD USER INTERACTIONS
US 20160063546 A1
Ghosh; Debashis et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING TIMELY AND TARGETED OFFERS
US 20160012457 A1
Unser; Kenny et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SALES STRATEGY OPTIMIZATION
US 20160012452 A1
Unser; Kenny et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING CARD HOLDER PREFERENCE
US 20150039388 A1
Rajaraman; Arun
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING CONSUMER PROFILES FOR TARGETED MARKETPLACE ACTIVITIES
US 20140172625 A1
Reisman; Richard
Method And Apparatus For Collecting Data For An Item
US 20140074687 A1
Halpern; Paul
ASSESSING CONSUMER PURCHASE BEHAVIOR IN MAKING A FINANCIAL CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION DECISION
US 20130346264 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Identify Affluence Levels of Accounts
US 20130218670 A1
Spears; Joseph et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS AN OFFER CAMPAIGN BASED ON INELIGIBILITY
US 20130218664 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROVIDE AND ADJUST OFFERS
US 20130204703 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS REFERRALS IN OFFER CAMPAIGNS
US 20130191213 A1
Beck; Andrew et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FORMULATE OFFERS VIA MOBILE DEVICES AND TRANSACTION DATA
US 20130191198 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO REDEEM OFFERS BASED ON A PREDETERMINED GEOGRAPHIC REGION
US 20130191195 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PRESENT AND PROCESS OFFERS
US 20130151388 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO IDENTIFY AFFLUENCE LEVELS OF ACCOUNTS
US 20120109734 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods to Match Identifiers
US 20120066065 A1
Switzer; Nancy
Systems and Methods to Segment Customers
US 20110313900 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Predict Potential Attrition of Consumer Payment Account
US 20110231305 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Spending Patterns
US 20110231258 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Distribute Advertisement Opportunities to Merchants
US 20110231257 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Differences in Spending Patterns
US 20110231225 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Customers Based on Spending Patterns
US 20110093327 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods to Match Identifiers
US 20110087519 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods for Panel Enhancement with Transaction Data
US 20100161379 A1
Bene; Marc Del et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR FROM TRANSACTION CARD PURCHASES
US 8706647 B2
Pathak; Nishith et al.
Estimating value of user's social influence on other users of computer network system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/22/2026