DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 1/26/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 2, 13, 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.
[K] executing the method, by one or more hardware processors of a computing device that executes a data-driven segmentation manager stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
[L] dynamically creating, by the data-driven segmentation manager, customer segments without predefined segment definitions or manually-developed rules by deriving segment boundaries directly from the mathematical vector relationships of the historical transactions, such that the groups change dynamically as transaction histories change for each of the customers.
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]); providing the groups to generate a segmentation, which is utilized to dynamically target customers ([I], [J]), and executing the method by a processor and dynamically creating customer segments ([K], [L]) 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 – Additional Elements]
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.
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.
[H] executing the method, by one or more hardware processors of a computing device that executes a data-driven segmentation manager stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
[I] dynamically creating, by the data-driven segmentation manager, customer segments without predefined segment definitions or manually-developed rules by deriving segment boundaries directly from the mathematical vector relationships of the historical transactions, such that the groups change dynamically as transaction histories change for each of the customers.
Independent claim 13 recites: aggregating customer transaction vectors and determining groups of customers ([D], [E]); providing the groups a numerical context along with providing the customer segmentation to the automated processing ([F], [G]); and executing the method by a processor and dynamically creating customer segments ([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 13 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
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.
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.
[J] executing the method, by one or more hardware processors of a computing device that executes a data-driven segmentation manager stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
[K] dynamically creating, by the data-driven segmentation manager, customer segments without predefined segment definitions or manually-developed rules by deriving segment boundaries directly from the mathematical vector relationships of the historical transactions, such that the groups change dynamically as transaction histories change for each of the customers.
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]); providing the groups of customer along with the data driven customer segmentation ([H], [I]); and executing the method by a processor and dynamically creating customer segments ([J], [K]) 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 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 – Additional Elements]
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.
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.
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.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 “A. The Claims Reflect a Specific Technical Improvement to Customer Segmentation Technology, Not Merely the Use of a Computer as a Tool”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, 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.” Segmenting a customer base 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 elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Based on the claim language (“providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups through automated processing that enables dynamic customer targeting”, dynamically creating, by the data-driven segmentation manager, customer segments without predefined segment definitions or manually-developed rules by deriving segment boundaries directly from the mathematical vector relationships of the historical transactions, such that the groups change dynamically as transaction histories change for each of the customers”) and in light of the specification (“Customer segmentation is an essential tool for retailers worldwide. A marketer’s goal is to effectively match an offer to a customer and effective customer segments are essential for achieving the match. Current solutions are mostly manual and rely heavily on presumptions.”) the claims are directed to a business problem (i.e., segmenting a customer base), rather than a technical problem.
The technical infrastructure (processor, memory) is only a recitation used to link the judicial exception to a technical environment (see MPEP 2196.05(f))
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The specification further discloses that these conventional systems "often produce non-optimal results where the variance between a given segment's members is high."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Whether a result is optimal or not is a matter of opinion; reasonable people would reasonably disagree as to a result being optimal. See MPEP 2173.05(b) and authorities cited therein.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “"The techniques provide data-driven customer segmentation and clustering tools/processes. It is data-driven because: no segment is assumed or predefined; there are no required rules for assigning a given customer to a segment, and segments change dynamically as transaction histories and items purchased change for each of the customers."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Arguably, all types of segmentation are “data driven,” i.e., data is always at the basis of a segmentation decision.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “… the present claims reflect an improvement to how the customer segmentation computing system itself operates: it no longer requires manual intervention, predefined rules, or static segment definitions, and it dynamically reconfigures segment assignments as new transaction data is processed by the hardware processor.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Not requiring manual intervention, i.e., computerizing, is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “B. The Improvements Are Reflected in the Amended Claim Language”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The added limitations are executed after the segmentation has already been executed, i.e. after the step of “providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups through automated processing that enables dynamic customer targeting.” Given the above, the question which arises is if a renewed segmentation will change the nature of the segments that have already been defined.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “These amended elements are not merely generic recitations of computer hardware or general-purpose computing.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility rejection in the instant office action does mot make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “These elements describe how the computing system itself operates differently from prior art systems, … ”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101-rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
The MPEP discloses that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination,” and “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.” MPEP 2106.05(I)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “C. The Examiner's Characterization of the Claims as Directed Only to a Business Problem Is Inconsistent with the Claims and the Controlling Authority”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, Based on the claim language (“providing data driven segmentation for the customers in the groups through automated processing that enables dynamic customer targeting”, dynamically creating, by the data-driven segmentation manager, customer segments without predefined segment definitions or manually-developed rules by deriving segment boundaries directly from the mathematical vector relationships of the historical transactions, such that the groups change dynamically as transaction histories change for each of the customers”) and in light of the specification (“Customer segmentation is an essential tool for retailers worldwide. A marketer’s goal is to effectively match an offer to a customer and effective customer segments are essential for achieving the match. Current solutions are mostly manual and rely heavily on presumptions.”) the claims are directed to a business problem (i.e., segmenting a customer base), rather than a technical problem.
Second, 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.” Segmenting a customer base 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 elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
The technical infrastructure (processor, memory) is only a recitation used to link the judicial exception to a technical environment (see MPEP 2196.05(f))
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “D. The Claims Are Not Directed to "Software Per Se" or Purely Mental Steps”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “E. Claims 20 and 21-Transitory Medium With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 20 and 21 as potentially encompassing transitory media, the amended claim 20 now expressly recites that the executable instructions are stored in a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium," resolving the Examiner's concern.”
After further consideration, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant submits “V. STEP 2B - SIGNIFICANTLY MORE”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claims 2, 13, 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 claims 2, 13, 20 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. 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 3697
Prosecution Insights