DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 8 each recite “retrieve[ing] a unified customer record” twice. As a result, it unclear whether “a unified customer record” is the same in each instance or a second unified customer record. Clarification is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The CROSS- REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS section must be updated to include updated continuity data. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11985270 (‘270).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1 and 8 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1 and 9, of ’270, respectively. Independent claims 1 and 8 of the current application are merely broader versions of the corresponding independent claims in ‘270, therefore the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims. Additionally, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 recite elements found in the independent claims and/or dependent claims of ‘270.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, system claims 1-7 are directed to a computing system comprising a processor, a memory, and a network interface, and method claims 8-14 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite campaign management and predictive customer engagement, including retrieving, segregating, predicting, receiving, feeding, generating, establishing, obtaining, updating, and using steps.
The limitations of retrieving, segregating, predicting, receiving, feeding, generating, establishing, obtaining, updating, and using, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite retrieving a plurality of customer records from a database; segregating the plurality of customer records into a training dataset and a test dataset; using the training dataset to train to predict a probability of a customer behavior or sentiment; retrieving a unified customer record from the database; receiving a predicted behavior or sentiment associated with the customer associated with the retrieved unified customer record; generate a predicted probability of a behavior or sentiment for the customer associated with the retrieved unified customer data profile; and retrieving a unified customer record from the database, wherein the unified customer record indicates the customer has not provided consent to receive a telephone call; establishing a connection with the customer via one or more non-telephonic channels of communication; obtaining customer consent via the one or more non-telephonic channels; updating a consent status in the unified customer record and store the updated unified customer record; and where consent has been obtained, using the predicted probability of a behavior or sentiment for the customer associated with the retrieved unified customer record to generate a call time and making an outbound telephone call to the customer at the generated call time.
That is, other than reciting to a computing system, an analytics subsystem, a centralized campaign manager subsystem, a neural network, and an automated telephone dialing system, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a computing system, an analytics subsystem, a centralized campaign manager subsystem, a neural network, and an automated telephone dialing system. The computing system, analytics subsystem, centralized campaign manager subsystem, neural network, and automated telephone dialing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing system, an analytics subsystem, a centralized campaign manager subsystem, a neural network, and an automated telephone dialing system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites additional ingesting, transforming, correlating, and storing steps. Claims 3 and 4 further describe the plurality of sources and the standard data format. Claims 5-7 further describe the database and the predicted behavior or sentiment. Similarly, dependent claims 9-14 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a computing system, an analytics subsystem, a centralized campaign manager subsystem, a neural network, and an automated telephone dialing system.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0123 of the specification, “According to specific aspects, at least some of the features or functionalities of the various aspects disclosed herein may be implemented on one or more general-purpose computers associated with one or more networks, such as for example an end-user computer system, a client computer, a network server or other server system, a mobile computing device (e.g., tablet computing device, mobile phone, smartphone, laptop, or other appropriate computing device), a consumer electronic device, a music player, or any other suitable electronic device, router, switch, or other suitable device, or any combination thereof. In at least some aspects, at least some of the features or functionalities of the various aspects disclosed herein may be implemented in one or more virtualized computing environments (e.g., network computing clouds, virtual machines hosted on one or more physical computing machines, or other appropriate virtual environments).”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Conclusion
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, feeding the retrieved unified customer record and the predicted behavior or sentiment as input into the trained neural network to generate a predicted probability of a behavior or sentiment for the customer associated with the retrieved unified customer data profile; and retrieving a unified customer record from the database, wherein the unified customer record indicates the customer has not provided consent to receive a telephone call; establishing a connection with the customer via one or more non-telephonic channels of communication; obtaining customer consent via the one or more non-telephonic channels; updating a consent status in the unified customer record and store the updated unified customer record in the database; and where consent has been obtained, using the predicted probability of a behavior or sentiment for the customer associated with the retrieved unified customer record to generate a call time.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses campaign and customer management.
-Ullah et al (A Churn Prediction Model Using Random Forest: Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques for Churn Prediction and Factor Identification in Telecom Sector) disclose a churn prediction model that uses classification, as well as, clustering techniques to identify the churn customers and provides the factors behind the churning of customers in the telecom sector.
-Rygielski et al (Data mining techniques for customer relationship management) disclose tools and technologies of data warehousing, datamining, and other customer relationship management (CRM) techniques.
-Deligiannis et al (Designing a Real-Time Data-Driven Customer Churn Risk Indicator for Subscription Commerce) disclose a prototype algorithm to estimate a continuously updated indicator of the probability of an existing customer to cease purchasing from a subscription commerce business.
-Chan (Intelligent value-based customer segmentation method for campaign management: A case study of automobile retailer) discloses customer behavior using a recency, frequency and monetary (RFM) model and then uses a customer life time value (LTV) model to evaluate proposed segmented customers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 January 3, 2026