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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings by applicants on 01/02/26.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended
Claims 11-21 are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-10 are pending
Note:
Amended independent claim 1 are simply further describing the workflow process and as such the claims do not overcome the 101 rejection previously made.
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 1-10 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
A computer-executed method comprising:
executing code on one or more computing devices to cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
maintaining, for each entity of a plurality of entities, a corresponding set of historical activity records;
wherein each historical activity record represents an activity instance that targeted the corresponding entity, represented in the historical activity record, wherein the targeted communication represents communication to the corresponding entity and the historical activity record includes:
a sequence-number that reflects a temporal position of the activity instance relative to other activity instances that targeted the corresponding entity, and an activity result value;
wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, is associated with a respective entity score and the entity score relates to a particular characteristic of the entity;
assigning each entity, of the plurality of entities, to a respective bucket in a plurality of buckets based, at least in part, on the entity score of the entity;
calculating a particular marginal value matrix by, for each bucket of the plurality of buckets, calculating a marginal value for each sequence-number of a plurality of sequence-numbers;
wherein, within the particular marginal value matrix, the marginal value for each bucket/sequence-number combination is calculated using at least:
Mᵢ,j aMᵢ,ⱼ₊₁ a²Mᵢ,ⱼ₊₂ aⁿMᵢ,ⱼ₊ₙ =E^n (x=0) a^x M(I,j+x)
where M represents a marginal value, i represents a bucket index, i is a sequence-number, and a is a discount factor;
predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in a set of current entities;
displaying, in a graphical user interface, effectiveness symbols based on the predicted marginal value that give an indication of a relative effectiveness to guide pursuit of an activity for each of the current entities;
displaying in a second graphical user interface structured workflow recommendation;
providing operable controls for the second graphical interface of the displayed structured workflow recommendation to allow a user to sort the set of current entities by predicted marginal value and detect time optimal activities; and displaying, in a third graphical user interface, information that identifies a recommended current entity, of the set of current entities, associated with the highest predicted marginal value.
The limitations underlined above in the current applications are overlapping limitations that are presented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,595.
Claim 1 of the current application recites very similar limitations to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicants merely seek to broaden the claims by removing limitations from the U.S. Patent No. 11,995,595.
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 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1-10 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Identify the Abstract Idea(s)
The Alice framework, steps 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo Test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
Independent claim 1, with respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, when “taken as a whole” the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Method Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “maintaining, for each entity of a plurality of entities, a corresponding set of historical activity records; wherein each historical activity record represents an activity instance that targeted the corresponding entity, represented in the historical activity record, wherein the targeted communication represents communication to the corresponding entity and the historical activity record includes: a sequence-number that reflects a temporal position of the activity instance relative to other activity instances that targeted the corresponding entity, and an activity result value; wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, is associated with a respective entity score and the entity score relates to a particular characteristic of the entity; assigning each entity, of the plurality of entities, to a respective bucket in a plurality of buckets based, at least in part, on the entity score of the entity; calculating a particular marginal value matrix by, for each bucket of the plurality of buckets, calculating a marginal value for each sequence-number of a plurality of sequence-numbers; wherein, within the particular marginal value matrix, the marginal value for each bucket/sequence-number combination is calculated using at least: Mᵢ,j aMᵢ,ⱼ₊₁ a²Mᵢ,ⱼ₊₂ aⁿMᵢ,ⱼ₊ₙ =E^n (x=0) a^x M(I,j+x); where M represents a marginal value, i represents a bucket index, i is a sequence-number, and a is a discount factor; predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in a set of current entities; displaying, effectiveness symbols based on the predicted marginal value that give an indication of a relative effectiveness to guide pursuit of an activity for each of the current entities; displaying structured workflow recommendation; providing operable controls for the second graphical interface of the displayed structured workflow recommendation to allow a user to sort the set of current entities by predicted marginal value and detect time optimal activities; and displaying, information that identifies a recommended current entity, of the set of current entities, associated with the highest predicted marginal value.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to managing workflow sequencing for human entities, which involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. For instance, the specification in [0016]-[0017]: To provide people with information about the potential values of possible next-step activities, an automated next-step advice generation system is provided. The automated next-step advice generation system takes into account a variety of objective factors, including activity type and historical data, in order to automatically generate next-step advice based on objective information…. Embodiments aid a salesperson to prioritize their activities by predicting marginal values of activities targeted to the current leads, prospects, etc. of the salesperson, and displaying the predicted marginal values in a recommended structured workflow display. Using a combination of sales prospect scoring, activity tracking, and activity outcome data, embodiments estimate the value of completing a given activity that is targeted to a particular current entity.”
The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Additionally, these claim limitations belong to the grouping of “Mathematical concepts” because the claims are related to the formula recited in claim 1, which calculates effectiveness symbols based on the predicted marginal value and other such calculations that allow automation of workflow recommendations. The courts have used the phrase “Mathematical concepts” as — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “A computer-executed method comprising: in a graphical user interface, wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause: executing code on one or more computing devices to cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: in a graphical user interface, in a second graphical user interface, in a third graphical user interface” at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-10 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 2 recite “wherein predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in the set of current entities comprises: identifying a particular bucket, of the plurality of buckets, for a particular current entity, of the set of current entities, based on a particular entity score associated with the particular current entity; identifying a next sequence-number for the particular current entity based, at least in part, on a most-advanced sequence-number for historical activity records associated with the particular current entity; and determining a particular predicted marginal value for the particular current entity based, at least in part, on the marginal value, in the particular marginal value matrix, for the combination of the particular bucket and the next sequence- number” and dependent claims 3 recite “wherein: each bucket, of the plurality of buckets, is associated with a range of entity scores; and identifying the particular bucket, of the plurality of buckets, for the particular current entity based on the particular entity score comprises determining that the particular entity score falls within a particular range of scores associated with the particular bucket”. Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 8 recites “further comprising: identifying a recommended type of activity for the particular current entity based on a type of activity associated with the marginal value matrix from which the particular predicted marginal value was identified; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, information identifying the recommended type of activity for the particular current entity” in the claim limitations “graphical user interface” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-10 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B: Determine Whether Any Element, Or Combination, Amount to “Significantly More” Than the Abstract Idea Itself
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A computer-executed method comprising: in a graphical user interface, wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause: executing code on one or more computing devices to cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: in a graphical user interface, in a second graphical user interface, in a third graphical user interface” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0020], [0022], [0037]. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. All of these additional elements are significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well- understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years. Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or 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.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-10 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claim 1. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-10 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Further, Examiner notes that the addition limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - withdrawn
In the most recent filings, applicants have amended independent claim 1. Please see the Remarks dated 01/02/26, especially on pages 8 from applicants why the 103 rejection is overcome are persuasive.
The amended claims recite the following underlined limitations that are not shown by the prior art:
“1. A computer-executed method comprising:
executing code on one or more computing devices to cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
maintaining, for each entity of a plurality of entities, a corresponding set of historical activity records;
wherein each historical activity record represents an activity instance that targeted the corresponding entity, represented in the historical activity record, wherein the targeted communication represents communication to the corresponding entity and the historical activity record includes:
a sequence-number that reflects a temporal position of the activity instance relative to other activity instances that targeted the corresponding entity, and an activity result value;
wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, is associated with a respective entity score and the entity score relates to a particular characteristic of the entity;
assigning each entity, of the plurality of entities, to a respective bucket in a plurality of buckets based, at least in part, on the entity score of the entity;
calculating a particular marginal value matrix by, for each bucket of the plurality of buckets, calculating a marginal value for each sequence-number of a plurality of sequence-numbers;
wherein, within the particular marginal value matrix, the marginal value for each bucket/sequence-number combination is calculated using at least:
Mᵢ,j aMᵢ,ⱼ₊₁ a²Mᵢ,ⱼ₊₂ aⁿMᵢ,ⱼ₊ₙ =E^n (x=0) a^x M(I,j+x)
where M represents a marginal value, i represents a bucket index, i is a sequence-number, and a is a discount factor;
predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in a set of current entities;
displaying, in a graphical user interface, effectiveness symbols based on the predicted marginal value that give an indication of a relative effectiveness to guide pursuit of an activity for each of the current entities;
displaying in a second graphical user interface structured workflow recommendation;
providing operable controls for the second graphical interface of the displayed structured workflow recommendation to allow a user to sort the set of current entities by predicted marginal value and detect time optimal activities; and displaying, in a third graphical user interface, information that identifies a recommended current entity, of the set of current entities, associated with the highest predicted marginal value.”
In light of applicants’ arguments and the amendments filed by applicants to previously presented claims in light of the originally filed disclosure the previously made rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn for following reasons:
None of the references cited - (US 2013/0055268) Amershi; Saleema A. et al., further in view of (US 2015/0100528) Danson; Christopher et al. show the claim limitations discussed above in light of the specification.
Even though, Reference Amershi is concerned with generating automated web task procedures from an analysis of web history logs. One aspect of the invention concerns a method that comprises identifying sequences of related web actions from a web log, grouping each set of similar web actions into an action class, and mapping the sequences of related web actions into sequences of action classes. The method further clusters each group of similar sequences of action classes into a cluster, wherein relationships among the action classes in the cluster are represented by a state machine, and generates automated web task procedures from the state machine (Abstract). Amershi shows: [0031]: a web log pre-processor 210 may output a step in the ClearScript language for each web interaction to the web history for each user. [0030]: a web history log may be generated as a result of recording user interactions "Here's What I Did: Sharing and Reusing Web Activity with ActionShot,”. Amershi shows: [0042]: The web task automation system 108 may then segment the logs within each day using a time-based heuristic as follows. Here, the logs read on “sequence-number” in the claim. The time of the log reads on “temporal position”. [0030]: a web history log may be generated as a result of recording user interactions "Here's What I Did: Sharing and Reusing Web Activity with ActionShot,” [0019] An automated generation of web procedures could benefit a large number of web users. Once the automated web procedures are created, task procedures or sub-procedures could help users remember the procedures or sub-procedures when the users are in a particular situation, and remind the users to take the correct next steps to accomplish repeated tasks. Automated web task procedures thus help the users perform the repeated tasks with less errors and increase user productivity. Amershi shows “buckets” at least in [0023]: clustering of the action classes. Amershi shows: [0031]: a web log pre-processor 210 may output a step in the ClearScript language for each web interaction to the web history for each user. [0042]: compute the mean time between consecutive domain actions, and then segment the logs when the time between consecutive actions exceeds one standard deviation of the mean. Amershi does not explicitly show “wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, is associated with a respective entity score and the entity score relates to a particular characteristic of the entity” and “calculating a particular marginal value matrix by, for each bucket of the plurality of buckets, calculating a marginal value for each sequence-number of a plurality of sequence-numbers”. Amershi also does not explicitly show: “predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in a set of current entities.” However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
Reference Danson shows “wherein each entity, of the plurality of entities, is associated with a respective entity score and the entity score relates to a particular characteristic of the entity” in Danson shows predicting the likelihood of a prospect action based on the determination [0016]. [0049]: The predictive model predicts the likelihood of a prospect achieving certain goals and taking certain actions. [0058]: Other inputs that may be used by the predictive model include the demographic profile of the prospect, behavioral analysis of the prospect, and past history between the agent and the prospect. [0068]: The predictive model can help determine which customers are ready and likely to make a purchase, which customers are ready and likely to make a specific purchase, and which customers still need more information before making a purchase, by providing a likelihood of success for each such prospect decision/inflection point. For example, a prospective sales lead who has had 4 or more meaningful contacts with an agent is very likely (e.g., 95% chance) to buy.). Danson shows: “calculating a particular marginal value matrix by, for each bucket of the plurality of buckets, calculating a marginal value for each sequence-number of a plurality of sequence-numbers” in [0033]: prospect "value" data (i.e., customer tenure, money spent as customer, etc. Danson shows [0044]: The algorithm finds the engaged segments in the communication and counts the total number of engaged segments. Danson shows: “predicting, based at least in part on the particular marginal value matrix, a predicted marginal value for each current entity in a set of current entities.” in [0033]: prospect "value" data (i.e., customer tenure, money spent as customer, etc.). Danson also shows “buckets” at least in [0038], [0051] – grouping, [0063]-[0065] – class. However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
*Additionally, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; however, the reference does not show the above claim limitations:
NPL Reference:
Reference Gotz et al. DecisionFlow: Visual Analytics for High-Dimensional Temporal Event Sequence Data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (Volume: 20, Issue: 12, Page(s): 1783-1792). Published: 12/31/2014. This reference is concerned with temporal event sequence data is increasingly commonplace, with applications ranging from electronic medical records to financial transactions to social media activity. Previously developed techniques have focused on low-dimensional datasets (e.g., with less than 20 distinct event types). Real-world datasets are often far more complex. This paper describes DecisionFlow, a visual analysis technique designed to support the analysis of high-dimensional temporal event sequence data (e.g., thousands of event types). DecisionFlow combines a scalable and dynamic temporal event data structure with interactive multi-view visualizations and ad hoc statistical analytics. We provide a detailed review of our methods, and present the results from a 12-person user study. The study results demonstrate that DecisionFlow enables the quick and accurate completion of a range of sequence analysis tasks for datasets containing thousands of event types and millions of individual events. However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
Foreign Reference:
Reference (JP 2008158971 A) Daijogo A et al. This reference is concerned with the margin of work-hours of work plan is calculated based on the forecast time estimated in order to complete the work plan. The operator of work plan is selected based on the margin and index value showing the high level of capability regarding the performance of operation currently recorded on storage device. However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, interalia, the claimed invention as detailed in independent claim 1, wherein the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments made to previously presented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foreign Reference:
(JP 2008158971 A) Daijogo A et al. This reference is concerned with the margin of work-hours of work plan is calculated based on the forecast time estimated in order to complete the work plan. The operator of work plan is selected based on the margin and index value showing the high level of capability regarding the performance of operation currently recorded on storage device.
NPL Reference:
Gotz et al. DecisionFlow: Visual Analytics for High-Dimensional Temporal Event Sequence Data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (Volume: 20, Issue: 12, Page(s): 1783-1792). Published: 12/31/2014. This reference is concerned with temporal event sequence data is increasingly commonplace, with applications ranging from electronic medical records to financial transactions to social media activity. Previously developed techniques have focused on low-dimensional datasets (e.g., with less than 20 distinct event types). Real-world datasets are often far more complex. This paper describes DecisionFlow, a visual analysis technique designed to support the analysis of high-dimensional temporal event sequence data (e.g., thousands of event types). DecisionFlow combines a scalable and dynamic temporal event data structure with interactive multi-view visualizations and ad hoc statistical analytics. We provide a detailed review of our methods, and present the results from a 12-person user study. The study results demonstrate that DecisionFlow enables the quick and accurate completion of a range of sequence analysis tasks for datasets containing thousands of event types and millions of individual events.
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 NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights