DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed March 21, 2024. Claims 1–18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “reporting cycles” in the element reciting “identify and store transition point numbers”. However, claim 1 previously recites “reporting cycles” in the element reciting “specify reporting cycles”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “reporting cycles”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “identify and store transition point numbers for [[all]] the reporting cycles”.
Claim 1 recites “the occurrence” and “the maximum activity number” in the element to “analyze activity data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] an occurrence of [[the]] a maximum activity number”.
Claim 1 recites “the same prior activity data” in the element to “analyze for each reference event”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a same prior activity data”.
Claim 1 recites “its prior corresponding reference event instances” in the element reciting “store for each reporting cycle an array”. Examiner submits that the term “its” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the term “its” to reference the array element or the reference event.
Claim 1 further recites “the array element” in the element reciting “store for each reporting cycle an array”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “in which each array element associates a reference event and [[its]] prior corresponding reference event instances to determine a trend to assign [[the]] an array element true if valid and false if invalid”.
Claim 1 recites the term “similar” in the elements reciting “assign for each reporting cycle” and “populate the unpopulated repeater cohort lists”. The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 further recites “unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of similar repetitive activity” in the element to “assign” and “unique identifiers associated with similar localized repetitive activity” in the element to “populate”. Examiner submits that the identified elements render the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “unique identifiers”.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “assign … unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of the unique identifiers characterized by the localized trends of the repetitive activity”.
Claim 1 recites “the union of activity data”, “the cohort lists”, “the aggregate source activity data”, and “the reporting cycle” in the element to “validate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “validate for each reporting cycle that each cohort list is mutually exclusive, such that [[the]] a union of activity data associated with the unpopulated repeater cohort list and the unpopulated single instance cohort list matches [[the]] an aggregate source activity data for [[the]] a reporting cycle”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–18, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–18 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “ancillary attributes” in lines 2–3. However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, previously recites “ancillary attributes”. As a result, the scope of claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 9 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce second, different “ancillary attributes”.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as reciting “organize the output data in accordance with the ancillary attributes.”
Claim 11 recites “individual unique identifiers” in the element to “generate”. However, claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, previously recites “individual unique identifiers”. As a result, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 11 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce second, different “individual unique identifiers”.
For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as reciting “the individual unique identifiers” in the element to “generate”.
Claim 16 recites “unique identifiers” in line 2 and “unique identifiers for individuals with similar repetitive activity”. However, claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, previously recites “unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of similar repetitive activity” in the element to “assign” and “unique identifiers associated with similar localized repetitive activity” in the element to “populate”. As a result, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claim 16 to reference the recitations of claim 1 or intends to introduce second, different “unique identifiers”.
Claim 16 further recites the term “similar” in line 3. The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted as reciting an element “to generate lists of unique identifiers for the reporting cycles, wherein each list has the unique identifiers characterized by the localized trends of the repetitive activity.
Claims 17–18 recite the term “similar” in line 1. The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, claims 17–18 are interpreted as reciting “wherein the
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–18 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “form an archive of activity data comprising actions associated with individual unique identifiers, each action having a number”; “specify reporting cycles, each reporting cycle having a reporting cycle number”; “compute for each reporting cycle activity data to form reporting period data”; “identify transition point numbers for all reporting cycles”; “analyze activity data in each reporting cycle to identify the occurrence of the maximum activity number associated with a unique identifier”; “specify lookback windows as number progressions”; “analyze for each reference event in the activity data for each unique identifier the same prior activity data associated with the unique identifier within each lookback window to produce a repetitive measure of activity data recency and frequency for each reference event”; “for each reporting cycle an array of unique identifiers lookback windows, in which each array element associates a reference event and its prior corresponding reference event instances to determine a trend to assign the array element true if valid and false if invalid”; “assign for each reporting cycle unpopulated repeater cohort lists and one additional unpopulated single instance cohort list, each unpopulated repeater cohort list being a repository for aggregating unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of similar repetitive activity”; “populate the unpopulated repeater cohort lists and the unpopulated single instance cohort list by utilizing array elements to group unique identifiers associated with similar localized repetitive activity relative to each reference event to form populated repeater cohort lists and a populated single instance cohort list”; “validate for each reporting cycle that each cohort list is mutually exclusive, such that the union of activity data associated with the cohort lists matches the aggregate source activity data for the reporting cycle”; “use the populated repeater cohort lists and the populated single instance cohort list as organizing keys to enable discriminatory parsing and analyzing of ancillary attributes to form output data”; “append the output data to the archive”; and “convey the output data to a user.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for commercial advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s Specification, the elements describe a process for analyzing repeating behavior of a consumer. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–18 further describe the process for analyzing repeating behavior of a consumer and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer readable storage medium, a processor, a network, and elements reciting consuming at least 1GB within the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and functionality to store data. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claims 2–18 depend. As a result, claims 2–18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer readable storage medium, a processor, a network, and elements reciting consuming at least 1GB within the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and functionality to store data. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claims 2–18 depend. As a result, claims 2–18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1–7 and 9–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUMPER et al. (U.S. 2021/0117990) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. 2021/0312493).
Claim 1: Jumper discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions executed by a processor (See FIG. 5 and paragraph 147) to:
form an archive of activity data comprising actions associated with individual unique identifiers, the archive consuming at least 1GB within the non-transitory computer readable storage medium (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 45–46, in view of paragraph 27, wherein a transaction data set is stored using customer identifiers, and wherein the data set is a large set of transactional data; see also paragraph 147);
specify reporting cycles, each reporting cycle having a reporting cycle number (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, wherein phase space cycles are specified, and wherein phase space cycles are numbered; see also paragraph 27);
compute for each reporting cycle activity data to form reporting period data (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, wherein transaction dates are mapped to the phase space by computing ordinal dates from the transaction information);
identify and store transition point numbers for all reporting cycles (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, wherein phase space cycle transition points are implicitly identified and stored; see also paragraph 27);
analyze activity data in each reporting cycle to identify and store the occurrence of the maximum activity number associated with a unique identifier (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, wherein number and strength of transactions are analyzed);
specify lookback windows as number progressions (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, wherein phase space cycles are specified, and wherein phase space cycles are numbered; see also paragraph 27);
analyze for each reference event in the activity data for each unique identifier the same prior activity data associated with the unique identifier within each lookback window to produce a repetitive measure of activity data recency and frequency for each reference event (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–61 and 66–67, wherein repetitive measures are generated for each phase period, and wherein repetitive measures include strength and redundancy measures that capture recurrence timing and frequency; see also paragraph 71);
store for each reporting cycle an array of unique identifiers lookback windows, in which each array element associates a reference event and its prior corresponding reference event instances to determine a trend to assign the array element true if valid and false if invalid (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 23 and 71, wherein repetitive measures are quantified with respect to each phase cycle to determine trends and identify true/false determinations based on confidence values);
append the output data to the archive (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 45, wherein outputs are integrated into the data set; see also paragraphs 87–88); and
convey the output data over a network to a user (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 45, in view of paragraph 143, wherein output charts and tables are disclosed in the context of a networked system; see also FIG. 5). Jumper does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Taylor discloses functionality to form an archive of activity data comprising actions associated with individual unique identifiers, each action having a number (See paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein interaction data is stored with respect to order ID, order number, timestamp, and customer identifiers),
assign for each reporting cycle unpopulated repeater cohort lists and one additional unpopulated single instance cohort list, each unpopulated repeater cohort list being a repository for aggregating unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of similar repetitive activity (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 23, wherein customers are organized into purchasing categories, including single purchase and repeat purchase categories, and wherein “[f]ewer, more or other lifecycle stages and/or other definitions of such lifecycle stages may be used as would be appreciated”; see also paragraph 29, wherein interaction data is stored with respect to customer identifiers);
populate the unpopulated repeater cohort lists and the unpopulated single instance cohort list by utilizing array elements to group unique identifiers associated with similar localized repetitive activity relative to each reference event to form populated repeater cohort lists and a populated single instance cohort list (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 23, in view of paragraph 63, wherein customers are organized into purchasing categories using vector space embeddings, including single purchase and repeat purchase categories, and wherein “[f]ewer, more or other lifecycle stages and/or other definitions of such lifecycle stages may be used as would be appreciated”; see also paragraph 29, wherein interaction data is stored with respect to customer identifiers);
validate for each reporting cycle that each cohort list is mutually exclusive, such that the union of activity data associated with the cohort lists matches the aggregate source activity data for the reporting cycle (See paragraph 28, wherein the system ensures that the categorical stages are mutually exclusive with respect to the customers); and
use the populated repeater cohort lists and the populated single instance cohort list as organizing keys to enable discriminatory parsing and analyzing of ancillary attributes to form output data (See FIG. 3, FIG. 4A–4B, and paragraphs 47–48, wherein a user may select stage and dimension attributes for filtering and display).
Jumper discloses a system directed to aggregating merchant information to detect recurring consumer trends. Taylor discloses a system directed to predicting customer behavior by analyzing transaction information. Each reference discloses a system directed to analyzing customer transaction information. The technique of utilizing cohort lists is applicable to the system of Jumper as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to analyzing customer transaction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Taylor to the teachings of Jumper would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate customer transaction analysis into similar systems. Further, applying cohort lists to Jumper would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 2: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 2.
Taylor discloses wherein the number is a sequence number (See paragraph 29, wherein interaction dimensions include an order ID dimension and an order number dimension).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 3.
Taylor discloses wherein the number is a timestamp (See paragraph 29, wherein interaction dimensions include an order timestamp dimension).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4: Jumper discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1 further comprising instructions executed by the processor to receive new activity data to form an augmented archive (See paragraphs 87–88, wherein new transactions are integrated into the transactional data available for analysis).
Claim 5: Jumper discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 4 further comprising instructions executed by the processor to:
designate a current reporting cycle using initial and final conditions (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–60 and 67, in view of paragraphs 87–88, wherein phase space cycles are specified, and wherein phase space cycles are numbered; see also paragraph 27);
analyze within the current reporting cycle by using the augmented archive to generate current reporting cycle activity levels and repeater data (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–61 and 66–67, in view of paragraphs 87–88, wherein repetitive measures are generated for each phase period, and wherein repetitive measures include strength and redundancy measures that capture recurrence timing and frequency; see also paragraph 71);
compute new augmented archive output data results for the current reporting cycle (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–61 and 66–67, in view of paragraphs 87–88, wherein repetitive measures are generated for each phase period, and wherein repetitive measures include strength and redundancy measures that capture recurrence timing and frequency; see also paragraph 71);
store the new augmented archive output data results for the current reporting cycle (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 45, wherein outputs are integrated into the data set; see also paragraphs 87–88); and
increment the current reporting cycle to a next reporting cycle (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 59–61 and 66–67, in view of paragraphs 54 and 87–88, wherein phase cycles are implicitly incremented as new information is received within the system). Jumper does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Taylor discloses repeater and single instance cohorts (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 23, wherein customers are organized into purchasing categories, including single purchase and repeat purchase categories, and wherein “[f]ewer, more or other lifecycle stages and/or other definitions of such lifecycle stages may be used as would be appreciated”; see also paragraph 29, wherein interaction data is stored with respect to customer identifiers);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 6: Although Jumper discloses an augmented archive (See paragraphs 87–88, as cited above), Jumper does not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 6.
Taylor discloses wherein the archive is analyzed to form a predictive next best action (See paragraphs 49 and 81, wherein suggested next actions are generated using a predictive behavior model tuned on customer interactions).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7: Although Jumper discloses functionality to augment the new activity data (See paragraphs 87–88, as above), Jumper does not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 7.
Taylor discloses to augment the data with metadata including a unique record locator, origination timestamp and latest timestamp (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraph 22, wherein interaction dimensions include an order ID dimension, an order number dimension, an order timestamp, a customer browsed and viewed dimensions, and wherein interaction data further includes date and time information; see also paragraph 58).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 9.
Taylor discloses functionality to organize the output data in accordance with ancillary attributes (See FIG. 3 and FIG. 4A–4B, wherein customers are organized using a plurality of attributes).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 10: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the recited ancillary attributes are afforded limited patentable weight as nonfunctional descriptive material because the attributes do not functionally limit the element to “organize the output data”. Accordingly, the elements are addressed merely in the interest of compact prosecution.
Jumper discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9 wherein the ancillary attributes are selected from demographic information and spatial attributes and weather information (See paragraph 46, wherein customer features include region, language, ethnicity, and other features). Jumper does not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 10.
Taylor discloses wherein the ancillary attributes are selected from a multi-level categorical hierarchy, branding information, and temporal information (See FIG. 3 and FIG. 4A–4B, wherein customers are organized within lifecycle, buying cycle, device, channel, and product category attribute categories and sub-categories).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 11.
Taylor discloses functionality to specify a treatment activated upon a pre-specified initial condition and deactivated upon a pre-specified final condition (See paragraphs 49 and 81, in view of paragraph 21, wherein offers are specified in response to categorizing the customer, and wherein customer interactions are updated in real time, such that treatment actions are implicitly deactivated upon updating a category classification); and
generate treatment activity data comprising treatment actions associated with individual unique identifiers (See paragraphs 49 and 81, in view of paragraphs 7 and 50, wherein treatment actions are generated for particular customers, and wherein the system learns from interaction events, such that treatment activity data is generated).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 12–15: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the recited ancillary attributes are afforded limited patentable weight as nonfunctional descriptive material and/or a field of use because the attributes do not functionally limit the element to “specify a treatment”. Accordingly, the elements are addressed merely in the interest of compact prosecution.
Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claims 12–15.
Taylor discloses wherein the treatment is a promotional activity in a retail environment (See paragraphs 49 and 81, wherein retail offers are disclosed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 16: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 16.
Taylor discloses functionality to generate lists of unique identifiers for the reporting cycles, wherein each list has unique identifiers for individuals with similar repetitive activity (See FIG. 3, in view of paragraph 31, wherein lists of customers are generated with respect to repetitive activity buckets, and wherein each customer is associated with a customer ID).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 17: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 17.
Taylor discloses wherein the similar repetitive activity is a changed repetition rate (See FIG. 3, FIG. 4A, and paragraph 37, wherein each lifecycle stage includes a sub-category for “new to cycle”; see also paragraphs 25–26).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 18: Jumper does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 18.
Taylor discloses wherein the similar repetitive activity is a first instance of a repetition rate (See FIG. 3, FIG. 4A, and paragraph 37, wherein each lifecycle stage includes a sub-category for “new to cycle”; see also paragraphs 25–26).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Taylor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUMPER et al. (U.S. 2021/0117990) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. 2021/0312493), and in further view of Desai et al. (U.S. 10,496,938).
Claim 8: As detailed above, Jumper and Taylor disclose the elements of claims 1, 4, and 7. Although Taylor discloses using metadata (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraph 22, as cited above), Jumper and Taylor do not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 8.
Desai discloses functionality to use the metadata to prevent utilization of a duplicate copy or an older timestamped non-duplicate variation of previously recorded activity data (See col. 19, ll. 25–40, wherein duplicate records are identified and deleted based on timestamp information).
As disclosed above, Jumper discloses a system directed to aggregating merchant information to detect recurring consumer trends, and Taylor discloses a system directed to predicting customer behavior by analyzing transaction information. Desai discloses a system directed to analyzing customer transaction data to generate product decisions. Each reference discloses a system directed to analyzing customer transaction information. The technique of removing duplicates is applicable to the systems of Jumper and Taylor as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to analyzing customer transaction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Desai would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Desai to the teachings of Jumper and Taylor would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate customer transaction analysis into similar systems. Further, applying duplicate removal to Jumper and Taylor would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S. 2015/0371238) discloses a system directed to identifying recurring purchase events based on analyzing transactional data;
Yacoub et al. (U.S. 2020/0202379) discloses a system directed to determining subscription offers based on identifying repeating purchase patterns; and
Wang et al. (Wang, Fudong, and Meimei Chen. "The Research of Customer's Repeat-Purchase Model Based on Data Mining." 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science. IEEE, 2009.) discloses a system directed to modeling repeat purchases by mining transactional data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights