DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 1/26/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
Claims 2, 5-10, 12-14, 18, 20 are amended
Claims 1, 3-4 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 2, 5-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 2, 5-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 2, 5-19 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 20-21 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 2 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] processing Word2Vec algorithms to determine dimensions of a multidimensional space based on contexts of items which historical transactions and
[B] generating item vectors that define positions of each item within the multidimensional space relative to other items based on transaction co-occurrence patterns,
wherein the Word2vec algorithms
[C] analyze the historical transactions to identify which items are purchased together and
[D] map the items into the multidimensional space such that items with similar transaction contexts are positioned closer together;
[E] representing item codes for items of the historical transactions of customers within the multidimensional space as vectors plotted within the multidimensional space using the item vectors generated by the Word2Vec algorithms;
[F] aggregating, by a hardware processor, each customer's vectors by summing normalized item vectors and
[G] producing an aggregated customer vector per customer to create a mathematical representation of each customer's purchase behavior, where each aggregated customer vector plotted in the multidimensional space;
[H] clustering, by the hardware processor, the aggregated customer vectors into groups within the multidimensional space using machine-learning clustering algorithms that calculate distances between the aggregated customer vectors to identify relationships between customers based on the distances to enhance customer segmentation technology; and
[I] providing, via a real-time application programming interface, the groups and each aggregated customer vector as a numerical and mathematical context for evaluating each grouping and each customer based on each customer's historical transactions and thereby
[J] providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups through automated processing that enables dynamic customer targeting.
Independent claim 2 recites: generating transaction vectors and aggregating the vectors ([E], [F]); producing an aggregated customer vector and clustering the aggregated vectors into groups ([G], [H]); and providing the groups to generate a segmentation, which is utilized to dynamically target customers ([I], [J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, this combination, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 2 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “where each aggregated customer vector plotted in the multidimensional space”, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: processing Word2Vec algorithms ([A]), generating item vectors ([B]), analyze the historical transactions ([C]), map the items into the multidimensional space ([D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 2 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 13 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] processing Word2Vec algorithms to determine dimensions of a multidimensional space and
[B] mapping item codes to item vectors based on transaction co-occurrence patterns that identify which items are purchased together in historical transactions, wherein each item vector represents a mathematical representation of that item's purchase context relative to other items;
[C] using the historical transactions and the item codes associated with each historical transaction to generate customer transaction vectors represented in the multidimensional space, where each customer transaction vector corresponds to a certain customer's historical transactions;
[D] aggregating, by a hardware processor, each customer's corresponding customer transaction vectors into an aggregated customer transaction vector by summing normalized item vectors to create a mathematical representation of each customer's purchase behavior;
[E] determining, by the hardware processor, groups of the customers based on the aggregated customer transaction vectors from the multidimensional space using machine-learning clustering algorithms that calculate distances between aggregated customer transaction vectors to enhance customer segmentation technology; and
[F] providing, via a real-time application programming interface integrated with a promotion engine, the groups and each aggregated customer vector as a numerical and mathematical context for evaluating each grouping and each customer based on each customer's historical transactions and thereby
[G] providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups through automated processing that enhances technological efficiency of customer relationship management systems.
Independent claim 13 recites: aggregating customer transaction vectors and determining groups of customers ([D], [E]); and providing the groups a numerical context along with providing the customer segmentation to the automated processing ([F], [G]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, this combination, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 13 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein each item vector represents a mathematical representation of that item's purchase context relative to other items”; “where each customer transaction vector corresponds to a certain customer's historical transactions” are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: processing Word2Vec algorithms ([A]), mapping item codes to item vectors based on transaction co-occurrence patterns ([B]), using the historical transactions and the item codes associated with each historical transaction ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 13 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 20 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory includes executable instructions
[B] processing Word2Vec algorithms to determine dimensions of a multidimensional space and
[C] generating item vectors based on transaction co-occurrence patterns that identify contextual relationships between items based on which items are purchased together,
wherein the item vectors
[D] provide a mathematical representation of item purchase contexts;
[E] using historical transactions of customers and item codes associated with each historical transaction to represent customer transaction vectors in the multidimensional space;
[F] aggregating each customer's corresponding customer transaction vectors into an aggregated customer transaction vector by calculating sums of normalized item vectors to create mathematical representations of customer purchase behaviors;
[G] determining groups of the customers based on the aggregated customer transaction vectors from the multidimensional space using machine-learning clustering algorithms that enhance customer segmentation technology through distance calculations between aggregated customer transaction vectors; and
[H] providing, via a real-time application programming interface integrated with a promotion engine, the groups and each aggregated customer vector as a numerical and mathematical context for evaluating each groups groupings and each customer based on each customer's historical transactions and thereby
[I] providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups groupings through automated processing that enhances technological functionality of customer relationship management systems.
Independent claim 20 recites: creating customer transaction vectors and aggregating those vectors ([E], [F]); determining groups of customers based on aggregated groups of customers ([G]); and providing the groups of customer along with the data driven customer segmentation ([H], [I]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, this combination, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 20 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “processor,” “memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “the groups and each aggregated customer vector as a numerical and mathematical context for evaluating each groups groupings and each customer based on each customer's historical transactions and thereby” as applied to customer groups, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: processing Word2Vec algorithms ([B]), generating item vectors based on transaction co-occurrence patterns ([C]), provide a mathematical representation of item purchase contexts ([D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 20 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 20 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] providing as input to a machine learning algorithm the aggregated customer vectors and the multidimensional space and receiving the groups as output from the machine learning algorithm.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
[A] iterating the method at preconfigured intervals of time using updated historical transaction to produce updated aggregated customer vectors and updated groups.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “performing repetitive calculations”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
[A] providing the groups and each aggregated customer vector through a web-based or mobile application.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
[A] providing the groups and each aggregated customer vector through an application programming interface to a transaction interface.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
[A] storing the groups and each aggregated customer vector in a data store accessible to a loyalty system to provide mathematical-based and data-driving customer segmentation for user by the loyalty system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
[A] providing the groups and each aggregated customer vector through an application programming interface to a promotion engine associated with a loyalty system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, which is representative of dependent claims 14, recites:
[A] determining dimensions associated with the multidimensional space based a total number of unique ones of the item codes, wherein the item codes are obtained from a product catalogue of a store.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 (which is representative of dependent claims 14) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites:
[A] dynamically adjusting each aggregated customer vector and a corresponding grouping for a corresponding customer based on one or more transactions of the corresponding customer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites:
[A] representing each unique item code as an independent item vector within the multidimensional space.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites:
[A] representing each customer transaction vector as a sum of corresponding item vectors associated with a corresponding customer transaction.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 16 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
[A] representing each aggregated customer transaction vector as a sum of corresponding customer transaction vectors associated with a corresponding customer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 18, which is representative of dependent claims 21, recites:
[A] providing the groups and each aggregated customer vector to one or more of a mobile-based application, a web-based application, a transaction interface, a promotion engine, and a loyalty system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 (which is representative of dependent claims 21) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
[A] iterating the method based on subsequent transactions of the customers.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “performing repetitive calculations”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“segmenting customers based on transaction data and transaction history”).
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 2, 5-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 5-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to “software per se.”
Claims 2, 5-19 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the system disclosed is software per se. The applicant is advised to implement a particular hardware component such as a computer in the body of the claim language to the claimed system in order to overcome the rejections.
Claims 2, 5-19 recite a method directed to purely mental steps. In order for a method to be considered a "process" under §101, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials). Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-788 (1876). If neither of these requirements is met by the claim, the method is not a patent eligible process under §101 and is non-statutory subject matter. Thus, to qualify as a statutory process, the claim should positively recite the other statutory class (the thing or product) to which it is tied, for example, by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example, by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state. The applicant is advised to implement a particular apparatus such as a computer in the body of the claim language to perform the claimed method in order to overcome the rejections.
Claims 2, 5-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claim recites a transitory storage medium.
Regarding Claims 20-21, Applicant recites a computer readable medium for storing a computer product. However, Examiner asserts that he is obliged to give such claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, Fed. Cir. 1989). In doing so, Examiner further asserts that said claims may encompass transitory embodiments, namely propagating signals, carrier waves, and the like, and are therefore not directed to statutory subject matter. When a broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim encompasses such transitory embodiments, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, Fed. Cir. 2007). In the interest of compact prosecution, the Applicant may avoid such rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by properly adding the term “non-transitory” to the claim.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170140384 A1 Zoldi; Scott Michael et al. EVENT SEQUENCE PROBABILITY ENHANCEMENT OF STREAMING FRAUD ANALYTICS - A system and method is disclosed as using archetype-based n-grams based on an event sequence of the real-time transactions, the n-grams providing a probability based on a specific sequence of behavioral events and their likelihood, and in which high probability n-grams represent typical behaviors of customers in a same peer group, and low probability n-grams represent rare event sequences and increased risk.
US 20190392501 A1 Kumaresan Nair; Satheesh et al. IDENTIFYING PRODUCT ITEMS BASED ON SURGE ACTIVITY - Various embodiments described herein assist in identifying one or more product items of interest (e.g., high demand product items) based on surge activity, such as user buying surges, user selling surges, and user product listing (e.g., electronic or online listing) surges on an online marketplace system, and can further notify one or more users of selling opportunities of the identified products items of interest.
US 20180075467 A1 Tiwari; Rakesh METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING CUSTOMER SEGMENTS - A computer implemented method of identifying and classifying customer segments is disclosed. The method comprises: receiving customer purchase history data for a plurality of payment cards of a payment card account type associated with a merchant organization, the customer purchase history data comprising indications of transactions carried out by customers using the payment cards of the payment card account type at the merchant organization; grouping the customers into a plurality of customer segments using the purchase history data; receiving payment card accounting data for the payment card account type, the payment card accounting data comprising indications of accounting data associated with the payment card account type; calculating a revenue value for each customer segment of the plurality of customer segments; and classifying the customer segments according to the revenue value.
US 20180089737 A1 Ali; Afroza et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING USER SEGMENTS IN REAL-TIME - Systems and methods can include one or more processing modules and one or more non-transitory storage modules storing computing instructions configured to run on the one or more processing modules and perform acts of storing a plurality of user segments for users of an ecommerce website, recording an online browsing trail of a user during an online browsing session on the ecommerce website, the online browsing trail comprising a sequence of one or more actions by the user of the ecommerce website during the online browsing session, and predicting, in real-time, a first user segment for the user from the plurality of user segments during the online browsing session based on the sequence of the one or more actions of the user in the online browsing trail during the online browsing session as recorded by the one or more non-transitory storage modules.
US 20160307222 A1 OSOEKAWA; Takeshi et al. INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM - An information processing method includes: dividing processing target data, which indicates an action detected for each of a plurality of persons in a certain period, by a predetermined period length with reference to information related to a time contained in the data and separately performing a principal component analysis in each of the divided period length, by a processor; specifying corresponding axes in temporally adjacent analysis periods based on an axis calculated as a result of each principal component analysis, by the processor; and considering axes associated in the temporally adjacent periods as the same axis throughout all of the processing target data, and grouping the plurality of persons into a plurality of groups, by the processor.
US 20200311113 A1 GAO; Weiguo et al. METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EXTRACTING CORE WORD OF COMMODITY SHORT TEXT - A method and a device for extracting a core word of a commodity short text, is provided. The method of extracting a core word of a commodity short text includes: obtaining commodity short texts in a data set; performing word segmenting on each commodity short text; obtaining a document vector of the commodity short text according to context information of word segments of the commodity short text; clustering the commodity short texts in the data set according to document vectors; determining a cluster level weight of each word segment of the commodity short text in a category to which the commodity short text belongs; and determining a core word of the commodity short text according to the cluster level weight of each word segment.
US 20180211330 A1 Ran; Alexander S. et al. METHOD TO DETERMINE ACCOUNT SIMILARITY IN AN ONLINE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM - A method and system groups user accounts in a financial management system based on the similarities of the financial transactions associated with the accounts. The financial management system receives financial transaction data related to a plurality of financial transactions of a plurality of users. Each of the financial transactions is associated with an account of a user. The financial management system generates account characteristics vector data including, for each account, an account characteristics vector based on the financial transactions associated with the account. The financial management system groups the accounts by performing grouping analysis on the account characteristics vectors.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the former remark.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “As stated in paragraph [0003], existing computer-based segmentation systems "produce nonoptimal results where the variance between a given segment's members is high." Paragraph [0004] identifies that conventional systems require "predefined segments and user-defined rules" that "are not usually dynamic and changing; rather changes are achieved based on manual observations." This represents a technological limitation in existing customer segmentation computer systems.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Customer segmentation and clustering is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The amended claims recite specific technological improvements that enhance how computer systems perform customer segmentation:”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The invention improves computer segmentation technology by enabling systems to mathematically process relationships between items and customers through vector space operations, rather than requiring manual rule creation and static segment definitions.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Examiner cannot comprehend the meaning of “computer segmentation technology.” Evidently, it is not about segmenting computers. In light of the specification, it is about segmenting a group of customers by utilizing computers as a tool. It is not clear how a computer is improved by running software that targets a commercial application, i.e., segmenting a group of customers.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “2. Machine-Learning Enhancement of Segmentation Systems”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Machine learning is a tool utilized to improve a commercial application, rather than the computer on which the commercial application runs.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Real-Time API Integration for System Efficiency”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“Real-time” program execution is an improvement to the application running on a computer, rather than to the computer itself.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of computer-implemented customer segmentation systems:”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
By Applicant’s own admission, the application is directed to a “computer-implemented customer segmentation systems,” which utilized a computer as a tool. Therefore, the application is not directed to a computer, much less to the improvement of the computer. The claims only recite the computer as a tool.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698