DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed Aug 7, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
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- 8 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1, 21
Acquire a product promotion plan from the product supplier
acquire promotion results data for a product, the promotion results including a plurality of feature parameters for recipients of a promotion related to the product;
identify feature parameters in the plurality of feature parameters of the promotion results data that are in a multicore relationship;
store the identified feature parameters in the multicore feature management table of the storage unit in association with a product identification corresponding to the product;
to display a promotion target setting on which feature parameters of a recipient of another product promotion plan related to the product can be set by an operator; and
to display a notification to the operator when a designated feature parameter among the feature parameters on the promotion target setting is one identified as being in a multicore relationship with another feature parameter.
cause a promotion to be sent to recipients in the recipient management table with feature parameters matching those set by the operator on the promotion target setting screen.
The limitations of independent claim 1, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose (in summary) acquire promotion results…, identify features…, store said features, display a promotional target setting screen…, display a notification... Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using an promotion support server, storage unit, communication interface, processor, display, setting screen, and non-transitory computer readable medium The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of acquiring, identifying, storing, and outputting 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of promotion support server, storage unit, communication interface, processor, display, setting screen, and non-transitory computer readable medium to acquiring, identifying, storing, and outputting amounts to no more than mere instruction 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-8, 22-25 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-8, 22-25 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1- 8 and 21-25 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmachtoub et al. (US 2017/0046736) in view Franke et al. (US 9,465, 873)
Claim 1, 21: Elmachtoub discloses a promotion support server, comprising:
a display;[0047] a communication interface connected to at least one of product supplier apparatus and a store apparatus; (see for example [0037] communicating through a network, [0049] This target population is the ideal type/group of customers that strongly prefers this promotion over other promotions. Then the method proactively promotes these promotion(s) to the target population the system has identified. For instance, using a module 140, a promotion offer may be automatically generated and sent, e.g., over a communications network (not shown), to customer(s) making up the target group, e.g., when a customer submits a price query on online sales channel or mobile sales channel, or via an e-mail, snail-mail messaging, text messaging, or through social network web-sites. ) and a processor ([0036], processor) configured to:
acquire a product promotion plan from the product supplier apparatus; ([0054], a marketing campaign) acquire promotion results data for a product from product purchase data sent from the store apparatus, the promotion results including a plurality of feature parameters set from the recipients in the product promotion related to the product;(see for example [0021], identifying groups of people for offering targeted promotions of products, including e.g., goods and/or services, based on past historical promotion and transaction data of customers. Use of customer features of those customers associated with the past historical promotion offer, acceptance and other transaction feature data of customers, e.g., typically stored in databases legacy systems, is used for purposes of identifying a population of target entities (e.g., customers) for more direct targeted promotion of offers for goods, services, or both goods and services, in a manner designed to maximize the offering entity's profits. {0035], transaction data) identify feature parameters in the plurality of feature parameters of the promotion results data that are in a multicore relationship; (see for example [0021 and 0026], discloses includes historical promotion data and customer feature data. Example historical data refers to the stored data records on promotions offered in the past (e.g., a type of promotion offered), and a snapshot of the features of the customer (“customer features”) who were offered the promotion, and the customer's response (i.e., whether the customer accepted or rejected the promotion). Customer feature data refers to those attributes of customers that could benefit from a particular promotion. For example, in the context of targeting airline promotions, e.g., promoting a discount on air travel, examples of customer features used in defining groups or individuals may include: a customer's membership in a loyalty program and a particular tier level in a loyalty program membership, a number of flights a customer took in the past 2 years, an amount of time on a membership program, an age of the customer, a sky mileage balance) cause a display to display thereon a promotion target setting screen on which feature parameters of a recipient of another product promotion plan related to the product can be set by an operator;(see for example [0048], discloses an output module 130 of an embodiment displays promotions and their target groups indicated according to the mathematical optimization problem in view of the objective function, and the constraint set by the target group generator. Via a visualization module 135 presenting a results output display, a user may navigate through hundreds of promotions and analyze the effects of customer features forming the importance scores used in determining the target groups and that allows to identify the key features that are useful to make optimal promotion recommendations. The system implementing the methods described herein allows to narrow the scope of a “big data” collection to a few key features in which users may view the output of the analytics.) and cause the display to display a notification to the operator when a designated feature parameter among the feature parameters on the promotion target setting screen is one identified as being in a multicore relationship with another parameter.(see for example [0049 and 0053], disclose for each example promotion and for each of the top-most (important) customer features, there is shown in differentiated darker background or highlight, a target group of customers.)
cause a promotion to be sent to recipients in the recipient management table with feature parameters matching those set by the operator on the promotion target setting screen.( [0052]presenting a results output display via display interface 150 of FIG. 6, providing indicators in the form of darkened areas that visually indicate to the user which target group and which corresponding customer feature(s), would most benefit from and likely accept the promotion offer.)
but does not explicitly disclose store the identified feature parameters in the multicore feature management table of storage unit in association with a product identification corresponding to the product. However Franke discloses a storage unit, storing a recipient management table and a multicore feature management table.;(Col 14 lines 22 – 26, user activity database includes users information example col 12 lines 47-55 multicore features in a database) store the identified feature parameters in the multicore feature management table of storage unit in association with a product identification corresponding to the product. (see for example col 12 lines 47-55, , the unique identifier may identify information stored in the product description database 240 that describes the item's attributes and features. In some embodiments, the product description comprises, rather than, or in addition to a unique identifier, information describing a unique item, such as information describing its various attributes and features. Also see Col 6 lines 66-Col7 lines 1-15, multiple features associated to a user) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the information processing device of Elmachtoub and Franke to have included association with a product identification corresponding to the product;. The references of Elmachtoub and Franke both disclose promotional marketing. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the purchasing identification information of the Franke reference(s) for the purchasing identification information means of the reference of Elmachtoub. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 2, 22: Elmachtoub and Franke discloses the promotion support server according to claim 1, system of claim 21 wherein the processor is further configured to: receive purchase information for the product via the communication interface, the purchase information including information allowing specification of the feature parameters of a purchaser who purchased the product; ([0021 and 0026], Elmachtoub)and generate the promotion result data from the purchase information. ([0026, 0027 and 0030], Elmachtoub)
Claim 6, 25: Elmachtoub and Franke discloses the promotion support server according to claim 1, system of claim 21 wherein the feature parameters include demographic parameters of promotion recipients. [0026, 0039] Elmachtoub
Claim 7: Elmachtoub and Franke the promotion support server according to claim 1, wherein the notification includes a highlighting of a region on the promotion target setting screen in which the feature parameters identified as being in a multicore relationship are displayed. [0049 and 0053] Elmachtoub
Claim(s) 3,4, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmachtoub et al. (US 2017/0046736) in view Franke et al. (US 9,465, 873) in view of Delgado et al. (US 2013/0138492)
Claim 3, 23: Elmachtoub and Franke discloses the promotion support server according to claim 2, system of claim 22 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the purchase information includes an identifier allowing identification of the purchaser. However Delgado discloses wherein the purchase information includes an identifier allowing identification of the purchaser. [0016 and 0025] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the information processing device of Elmachtoub and Franke to have included wherein the purchase information includes an identifier allowing identification of the purchaser. The references of Elmachtoub and Franke both disclose promotional marketing. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the purchasing information of the Delgado reference(s) for the purchasing information means of the reference of Elmachtoub. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claims 4, 24: Elmachtoub and Franke discloses the promotion support server according to claim 3, system of claim 23 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the promotion results data is extracted from the purchase information using identifiers of purchasers in the purchase information. However Delgado discloses wherein the promotion results data is extracted from the purchase information using identifiers of purchasers in the purchase information. [0016, 0029] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the information processing device of Elmachtoub and Franke to have included wherein the promotion results data is extracted from the purchase information using identifiers of purchasers in the purchase information. The references of Elmachtoub and Franke both disclose promotional marketing. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the purchasing information of the Delgado reference(s) for the purchasing information means of the reference of Elmachtoub. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmachtoub et al. (US 2017/0046736) in view Franke et al. (US 9,465, 873) in view of Rapaport et al. (US 2022/0398634)
Claim 8: Elmachtoub and Franke discloses the promotion support server according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the notification includes a text message displayed on the promotion target setting screen. However Rapaport discloses wherein the notification includes a text message displayed on the promotion target setting screen.[0078 and 0099]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the information processing device of Elmachtoub and Rapport to have included wherein the notification includes a text message displayed on the promotion target setting screen.[. The references of Elmachtoub and Rapport both disclose promotional marketing. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the promotion target setting screen of the Rapport reference(s) for the promotion target setting screen means of the reference of Elmachtoub. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amendments to the claims adds tangible connections between tangible components and that paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0017 of the specification, provide to technological solution to existing problems in related art systems and incorporation multicore variables. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, it is irrelevant that the applicant believes there are tangible connections between tangible components. Furthermore, the applicant’s cited paragraphs do not disclose a technical problem and an unconventional technical solution. MPEP -2106.05(a) states, If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)The applicant’s cited paragraphs merely provide business or logistics problem, which is not a technical problem. Furthermore, if paragraph 0017 was considered a unconventional technical solution (which it is not), its considered a statement made in a conclusory manner. The applicant’s amendments to the claims do not provide limitations that are integrated into a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
As stated above the applicant’s claims do not have limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622