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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
This application is a continuation of application 17/321,922, filed 5/17/2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/121,576, filed on 9/4/2018, now U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814, which claims priority to provisional application 62/553,673, filed 9/1/2017.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: Claims 3, 5-9, 13, and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be free of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Notably, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting. These rejections must also be overcome.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be free of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Notably, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting. These rejections must also be overcome.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be free of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Notably, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting. These rejections must also be overcome.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be free of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Notably, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting. These rejections must also be overcome.
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, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-17, and 19 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, with Claim 1 as representative: Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “one or more processors”.
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions configured to run on the one or more processors”.
determining a personal replenishment cycle for an item of a set of items previously purchased by a user; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “applying a first set of rules to historical sales data available to a retailer to detect a personal replenishment cycle for an item… (2) the historical sales data comprises a record of the user purchasing the item”.
identifying that the user has stopped purchasing a first item in the set of items; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “identify if the user has stopped purchasing the item”.
removing the first item from the set of items after identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the first item; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “removing items that are no longer used by applying a second set of rules to identify if the user has stopped purchasing the item”.
reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user based on the personal replenishment cycle for the item. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user by applying a third set of rules to the personal replenishment cycle for the item”.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, with Claim 5 as representative: Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses further comprises:
identifying a number of replenishments for the item of the set of items that the user has made since the user last bought the items from a retailer; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses identifying a number of replenishments for the item, i, that the user, cid, has made since the user last bought the item, i, from the retailer;
identifying a mean replenishment cycle for the user and the item; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “identifying the mean replenishment cycle for the user, cid, and the item, i;
assuming a relationship of a model based on using independent random variables that are (i) mutually independent of one another and (ii) identically distributed random variables for a use (user, item) pair with an expectation and a variance, wherein the (user, item) pair comprises the respective user, item information; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “assuming a relationship of a model, where the independent variables that are (1) mutually independent of one another and (2) identically distributed for a (user, item) pair (cid,i) with expectation and variance”.
assuming a number of inter-replenishment times for the (user, item) pair from historical sales data of the retailer; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “assuming a number of inter-replenishment times for the (user, item) pair from the historical sales data of the retailer”.
estimating parameters of the model. Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “estimating parameters of the model”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, with Claim 16 as representative: Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses wherein:
solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair, based on: Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair”.
an estimate of a mean of the set of estimates; Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “an estimate of a mean”.
an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item. Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item”.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, with Claim 7 as representative: Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses wherein:
identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category”.
creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items”.
creating, a vector for the user and the set of items, wherein items of the set of items belong to a same group of the one or more groups; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “creating, for the user, a vector, where items belong to a group of the one or more groups”.
when the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “if the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero”.
for the user in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user. Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “for the user in a cluster, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, with Claim 9 as representative: Claims 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses wherein:
identifying, using a third set of rules, a personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer; Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “applying the third set of rules to the personal replenishment cycle for the item to identify the personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and (2) a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer”.
modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance, and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “modeling the elapsed time where Ecidi for the different (user, item) pairs are the independent random variables and the each independent random variable of the independent random variables for the (user, item) pair has the expectation and the variance is the mean replenishment cycle, for the user, and the item, and the corresponding to the estimated standard deviation”.
estimating a number of replenishments of the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the different retailer, wherein the number of replenishments of the item comprises the number of times the user has replenished the item; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “estimating a number of replenishments for the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the retailer, wherein the number of replenishments comprises the number of times the user has replenished the item”.
removing from consideration any items from the set of items greater than a p-th percentile of MAXGAP for the item, where the user belongs to a cluster of users who purchase the item; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “removing from consideration any items from the set of items greater than a p-th percentile, where the user belongs to a cluster of users”.
estimating the independent random variables for the user and remaining items of the set of items for the user. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,814 discloses “estimating for the user and the remaining items of the set of items for the user”.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, with Claim 1 as representative: Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “one or more processors”.
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors”.
determining a personal replenishment cycle for an item of a set of items previously purchased by a user; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “determining a personal replenishment cycle for an item of a set of items previously purchases by the user by executing a first set of rules on historical sales data”.
identifying that the user has stopped purchasing a first item in the set of items; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “identify that the user has stopped purchasing the first item”.
removing the first item from the set of items after identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the first item; Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “removing a first item from the set of items based on executing a second set of rules to identify that the user has stopped purchasing the first item”.
reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user based on the personal replenishment cycle for the item. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user based on executing a third set of rules on the personal replenishment cycle for the item”.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, with Claim 2 as representative: Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
the personal replenishment cycle for the item purchased by the user comprises an estimated time period of how often the user purchases the item; Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “the personal replenishment cycle for the item purchased by the user comprises an estimated time period of how often the user purchases the item”.
the estimated time period of how often the user purchases the item is determined by evaluating historical sales data comprising a record of the user purchasing the item on one or more dates. Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “detecting the personal replenishment cycle for the item of the set of items purchased by the user, wherein… the historical sales data comprises a record of the user purchasing the item on one or more dates”.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, with Claim 4 as representative: Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
analyzing, at a point of sale system, the set of items, by executing a first set of rules, wherein the first set of rules comprises: Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “analyzing, at the point of sale system, the set of items, wherein executing the first set of rules further comprises”.
determining, at the point of sale system, an estimated time period when the user will repurchase the item of the set of items, wherein the estimated time period includes an estimated next purchase data for the item; Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “determining, at the point of sale system, an estimated time period when the user will again purchase the item of the set of items, and wherein the estimated time period includes an estimated next purchase date for the item”.
transferring an identification of the item and the estimated next purchase data from the point of sale system to a user database system. Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses transferring an identification of the item and the estimated next purchase date from the point of sale system to a user database system.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, with Claim 5 as representative: Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
identifying a number of replenishments for the item of the set of items that the user has made since the user last bought the items from a retailer; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “identifying a number of replenishments for the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the retailer”.
identifying a mean replenishment cycle for the user and the item; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “identifying a mean replenishment cycle for the user and the item”.
assuming a relationship of a model based on using independent random variables that are (i) mutually independent of one another and (ii) identically distributed random variables for a use (user, item) pair with an expectation and a variance, wherein the (user, item) pair comprises the respective user, item information; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “assuming a relationship of a model based on using independent random variables that are (1) mutually independent of one another and (2) identically distributed random variables for a (user, item) pair with an expectation and a variance, wherein the (user, item) pair comprises the respective user, item information”.
assuming a number of inter-replenishment times for the (user, item) pair from historical sales data of the retailer; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “assuming a number of inter-replenishment times for the (user, item) pair from the historical sales data of the retailer”.
estimating parameters of the model. Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “estimating parameters of the model”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, with Claim 6 as representative: Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair, based on: Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair”.
an estimate of a mean of the set of estimates; Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “an estimate of a mean of the set of estimates”.
an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item. Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item”.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, with Claim 7 as representative: Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category”.
creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items”.
creating, a vector for the user and the set of items, wherein items of the set of items belong to a same group of the one or more groups; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “creating, a vector for the user and the set of items, wherein items of the set of items belong to a same group of the one or more groups”.
when the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero; Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “when the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero”.
for the user in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “for the user in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, with Claim 8 as representative: Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
determining, using a second set of rules, a MAXGAP, wherein the MAXGAP comprises: Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “determining a MAXGAP for the user and the item”.
for the user and the item, the MAXGAP is a maximum number of times the user skipped replenishing the item based on a time between a (k − 1)-th replenishment and a k-th replenishment for the user as obtained from historical sales data of a retailer; Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “for the user and the item, wherein the MAXGAP is a maximum number of times the user skipped replenishing the item based on a time between a (k - 1)-th replenishment and a k-th replenishment for the user as obtained from the historical sales data of the retailer”.
for the item and a cluster of users, including the user, who purchased the item, determining a p-th percentile of the MAXGAP of the user of the cluster of users; Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “for the item and a cluster of users, including the user, who purchase the item, determining ap-th percentile of the MAXGAP of the user of the cluster of users”.
when the user of the cluster of users has bought the item last from the retailer more than an N number of days before a predetermined day: Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “when the user of the cluster of users has bought the item last from the retailer more than an N number of days before a predetermined day”.
determining that the user will no longer replenish the item; Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “determining that the user will no longer replenish the item”.
removing the item from the personal replenishment cycle of the item for the user. Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “removing the item from the personal replenishment cycle of the item for the user”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, with Claim 9 as representative: Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
identifying, using a third set of rules, a personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer; Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “identifying the personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer”.
modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance, and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation; Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of the at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance; and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation”.
estimating a number of replenishments of the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the different retailer, wherein the number of replenishments of the item comprises the number of times the user has replenished the item; Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “estimating a number of replenishments of the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the retailer, wherein the number of replenishments of the item comprises the number of times the user has replenished the item”.
removing from consideration any items from the set of items greater than a p-th percentile of MAXGAP for the item, where the user belongs to a cluster of users who purchase the item; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses removing from consideration any items from the set of items greater than ap-th percentile of MAXGAP for the item, where the user belongs to a cluster of users who purchase the item”.
estimating the independent random variables for the user and remaining items of the set of items for the user. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “estimating the independent random variables for the user and the remaining items of the set of items for the user”.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, with Claim 10 as representative: Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses wherein:
displaying, on a graphical user interface of a user device of the user, item information for the item of the set of items available for sale from a retailer and purchased by the user at a first time; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “displaying, on a graphical user interface of a user device of the user, item information for the item of the set of items available for sale from a retailer and purchased by the user at a first time”.
displaying, on the graphical user interface of the user device at a second time after the first time, a promotion for the item: Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “displaying, on the graphical user interface of the user device at a second time after the first time, a promotion for the item”.
the second time is within a predetermined time period from completion of the personal replenishment cycle for the item that began at the first time; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “the second time is within a predetermined time period from completion of the personal replenishment cycle for the item that began at the first time”.
historical sales data for the item comprises an estimated time period during for repurchasing the item; Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “historical sales data for the item comprises an estimated time period during for repurchasing the item”.
the historical sales data comprise a record indicating that the user has stopped purchasing the first item. Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,625 discloses “the historical sales data comprise a record indicating that the user has stopped purchasing the first item”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of removing items that the user no longer purchases at regular intervals:
determining a personal replenishment cycle for an item of a set of items previously purchased by a user;
identifying that the user has stopped purchasing a first item in the set of items;
removing the first item from the set of items after identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the first item;
requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user based on the personal replenishment cycle for the item.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for removing items that the user no longer purchases at regular intervals. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining item replenishment cycles for a user and identifying items the user has stopped purchasing to remove, which is a sales and marketing endeavor.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Returning to representative claim 1, Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
one or more processors;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions;
reducing a number of database requests;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than apply the judicial exception on a general purpose computer.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and recited in passing as a preamble to the abstract idea of the claims. Specification paragraph [0022] defines the processor as any type of computational circuit, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a graphics processor, or any other type of processor or processing circuit. Specification paragraph [0020] discloses the memory as being any of ROM, RAM, EEPROM, etc. The specification shows that these additional elements may be any generic component, and are used merely to implement the abstract idea on a computing device, and provide a general link to a computing environment. The databases are also any generic database, as evidenced in specification paragraph [0043], which discloses the database can comprise a structured collection of data and can be managed by any suitable database management system, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL database, Microsoft SQL server, etc. It is evident that the databases function as they generically do, and any reduction in database requests does not reflect an improvement in any computer technology, but merely represents less needs for requesting for information for the abstract idea.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 11 (method): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of removing items that the user no longer purchases at regular intervals. Thus, each of claims 2-10 and 12-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements (e.g., a user database system (claim 4)) are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 and 12-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 and 12-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carr (US 20160125506 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Carr discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors; Carr discloses a processor (Carr: [0021]; see also: [0024]).
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions; Carr discloses computer program instructions stored on a computer-readable medium (Carr: [0016]; see also: [0021]).
determining a personal replenishment cycle for an item of a set of items previously purchased by a user; Carr discloses using order history of a user to identify items purchases on a regular basis, including the purchase frequency (Carr: [0023]; see also: [0010]).
identifying that the user has stopped purchasing a first item in the set of items; Carr discloses the customer declining to add the item a threshold number of times, and determining that the customer no longer wants that item (Carr: [0031-0032]).
removing the first item from the set of items after identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the first item; Carr discloses no longer suggesting the item to the user to repurchase and removing the item from the purchase options (Carr: [0031-0032]; claim 6).
reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user based on the personal replenishment cycle for the item. Carr discloses removing the item from the purchase options and no longer suggesting the items, which would result in less requests to the database for information of that item (Carr: [0032]; [0018]; see also: claim 6).
Regarding Claim 2: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr further discloses wherein:
the personal replenishment cycle for the item purchased by the user comprises an estimated time period of how often the user purchases the item; Carr discloses determining a purchase frequency of items, such as the purchasing of an item every 6 weeks (Carr: [0031-0032]; see also: [0023]; [0034]).
the estimated time period of how often the user purchases the item is determined by evaluating historical sales data comprising a record of the user purchasing the item on one or more dates. Carr discloses determining the purchase frequency using order history information tracking buying habits of the user (Carr: [0023]).
Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Zoldi (US 20180197200 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr further discloses wherein:
reducing a number of database requests for the set of items previously purchased by the user increases a network bandwidth of the system; Carr discloses removing the item from the purchase options and no longer suggesting the items, which would result in less requests to the database for information of that item and data being transmitted through the network (Carr: [0032]; [0018]; see also: claim 6).
identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the first item further comprises: Carr discloses the customer declining to add the item a threshold number of times, and determining that the customer no longer wants that item (Carr: [0031-032]).
identifying an elapsed time since the user bought the item from a retailer; Carr discloses identifying how long it has been since the item was last bought (Carr: [0031]; see also: [0034]).
estimating a number of times the user has replenished (i) the item or (ii) remaining items of the set of items; Carr discloses identifying the number of times the item has been suggested to the user, and the number of times the item has been declined, including when the items have been purchased (Carr: [0031]; see also: [0023]). In summary, the purchases of the items are tracked in the order data, and the number of times the item has been replenished is merely the difference of the total number of times the item was suggested and the number of times it was declined.
Carr does not explicitly teach determining a score for each remaining (user, item) pair. Notably, however, Carr does disclose ranking the regularly purchased item based on various criteria (Carr: [0034]).
To that accord, Zoldi does teach determining a score for each remaining (user, item) pair. Zoldi teaches propensity scores for items with the user that represent the propensity to repurchase the items (Zoldi: [0109-0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the determining of a score for each item with the user as taught by Zoldi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to quantify the top items the user is likely to repurchase (Zoldi: [0110]).
Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Rangan (US 20170345079 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
analyzing, at a point of sales system, the set of items, by executing a first set of rules, wherein the first set of rules comprises:
determining, at the point of sales system, an estimated time period when the user will repurchase the item of the set of items, wherein the estimated time period incudes an estimated next purchase data for the item;
transferring an identification of the item and the estimated next purchase date from the point of sale system to a user database system.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose tracking how often the use purchases and item and how long it’s been since their last purchase of an item (Carr: [0030-0031]).
To that accord, Rangan does teach a system comprising:
analyzing, at a point of sales system, the set of items, by executing a first set of rules, wherein the first set of rules comprises: determining, at the point of sales system, an estimated time period when the user will repurchase the item of the set of items, wherein the estimated time period includes an estimated next purchase data for the item; Rangan teaches scanning items at the point of sales to record various information of the items, and using that data to determine projected dates for replenishment (Rangan: [0073]; [0079]; see also: [0040]; [0052]; [0071]).
transferring an identification of the item and the estimated next purchase date from the point of sale system to a user database system. Rangan teaches putting the items and the item information onto the user profile in a shopping list (Rangan: [0079]; see also: [0040-0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the analyzing the items at a point of sale to estimate a time period of repurchase and transfer an identification of the item to a user database as taught by Rangan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to determine of a product should be marked for purchase and move the products up on the shopping list (Rangan: [0079]).
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Carr (US 20160125506 A1) and Rangan (US 20170345079 A1), in view of White (US 20130282626 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Carr and Rangan discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
identifying a number of replenishments for the item of the set of items that the user has made since the user last bought the item from a retailer; Carr discloses identifying the number of times the item has been suggested to the user, and the number of times the item has been declined, including when the items have been purchased (Carr: [0031]; see also: [0023]). In summary, the purchases of the items are tracked in the order data, and the number of times the item has been replenished is merely the difference of the total number of times the item was suggested and the number of times it was declined.
identifying a mean replenishment cycle for the user and the item; Carr discloses identifying the purchase frequency (mean replenishment cycle) of items regularly purchased by the customer (Carr: [0030]; see also: [0023]).
assuming a number of inter-replenishment times for the (user, item) pair from historical sales data of the retailer; Carr discloses identifying the number of times the item has been suggested to the user, and the number of times the item has been declined, including when the items have been purchased (Carr: [0031]; see also: [0023]). In summary, the purchases of the items are tracked in the order data, and the number of times the item has been replenished is merely the difference of the total number of times the item was suggested and the number of times it was declined.
The combination does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
assuming a relationship of a model based on using independent random variables that are (i) mutually independent of one another and (ii) identically distributed random variables for a (user, item) pair with an expectation and a variance, wherein the (user, item) pair comprises the respective user, item information;
estimating parameters of the model.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose identifying item and customer purchasing patterns from historical data (Carr: [0023]).
To that accord, White does teach a system comprising:
assuming a relationship of a model based on using independent random variables that are (i) mutually independent of one another and (ii) identically distributed random variables for a (user, item) pair with an expectation and a variance, wherein the (user, item) pair comprises the respective user, item information; White teaches a model for user behavior using mutually independent and identically distributed variables, and variance of parameters (White: [0122]).
estimating parameters of the model. White teaches estimating the model parameters (White: [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Carr and Rangan disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the model based on independent random variables that are mutually independent and identically distributed, and estimating parameters as taught by White. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately predict human behavior (White: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Carr (US 20160125506 A1), Rangan (US 20170345079 A1), and White (US 20130282626 A1), in view of Kazerouni (US 20180129760 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Carr, Rangan, and White discloses the limitatiosn of claim 5 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system comprising:
solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair, based on:
an estimate of a mean of the set of estimates;
an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose identifying item and customer purchasing patterns from historical data (Carr: [0023]), and White discloses a model for user behavior, estimating parameters, such as variance (White: [0122]).
To that accord, Kazerouni does teach the system comprising:
solving an optimization problem for the (user, item) pair, to obtain a set of estimates for the (user, item) pair, based on: Kazerouni teaches optimizing the model based on minimum detectable error (Kazerouni: [0071]).
an estimate of a mean of the set of estimates; Kazerouni teaches estimating a mean value for each option (Kazerouni: [0082]; see also: [0093]).
an estimate of a standard deviation of the personal replenishment cycle for the user and the item. Kazerouni teaches estimating the variance for the model (Kazerouni: [0079]; see also: [0090]; [0093]). The variance is merely the square of standard deviation, so estimating the variance is also an estimation of the standard deviation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Carr, Rangan, and White disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the optimizing the problem based on estimating a mean and standard deviation as taught by Kazerouni. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to guarantee the desired error bounds in real world scenarios (Kazerouni: [0071]).
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Wang (US 10,671,679 B2), and in further of Mukherjee (US 20160055501 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category;
creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items;
creating, a vector for the user and the set of items, wherein items of the set of items belong to a same group of the one or more groups;
when the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero;
for the cluster in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose using order history of a user to identify items purchases on a regular basis, including the purchase frequency (Carr: [0023]).
To that accord, Wang does teach a system comprising:
identifying one or more items of the set of items belonging to a category; Wang teaches determining candidate items to recommend to a user based on an interest to a particular category (Wang: col. 11, ln. 27-64).
creating one or more groups of similar items of the set of items; Wang teaches generating a set of candidate items to recommend to a user based on an interest to a particular category (Wang: col. 11, ln. 27-64).
creating, a vector for the user and the set of items, wherein items of the set of items belong to a same group of the one or more groups; Wang teaches creating and mapping the user vector with item vectors (Wang: col. 22, ln. 13-38; see also col. 12, ln.55-col.13, ln. 31).
when the vector for the item and the user cannot be estimated, selecting the vector equal to zero; Wang teaches assigning zeros in the vectors when ranges of features of items not fitting the user (Wang: col. 21, ln. 51-col. 22, ln. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the identifying items of a category to create groups of similar items and create vectors of the user and the set of items, the vector equal to zero when the item and user cannot be estimated as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to proactively estimate items of interest to the user col. 1, ln. 49-67).
Carr in view of Wang does not explicitly teach for the cluster in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user. Notably, however, Carr does disclose ranking historical items of the user to recommend (Carr: [0034]).
To that accord, Mukherjee does teach for the cluster in a cluster of users who purchase the item, identifying one or more percentile vectors for the user. Mukherjee teaches creating a vector corresponding to each consuming entity (Mukherjee: [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the identifying percentile vectors as taught by Mukherjee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to classify large sets of data to efficiently identify patterns (Mukherjee: [0002]).
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Ross (US 11,062,378 B1).
Regarding Claim 8: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr further discloses a method comprising:
determining, using a second set of rules, a MAXGAP, wherein the MAXGAP comprises: for the user and the item, the MAXGAP is a maximum number of times the user skipped replenishing the item based on a time between (k-1)-th replenishment and a k-th replenishment for the user as obtained from historical sales data of a retailer; Carr discloses the customer declining to add the item a threshold number of times, and determining that the customer no longer wants that item, such as since the last purchase of toothpaste 6 weeks ago to the current time (Carr: [0031-0032]).
when the user of the cluster of users has bought the item last from the retailer more than an N number of days before a predetermined day: determining that the user will no longer replenish the item; or removing the item from the personal replenishment cycle of the item for the user. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. Carr discloses determining the user may have stopped using the item when they have not bought the item or declined a suggestion a threshold number of times since a determined day (Carr: [0031-0032]).
Carr does not explicitly teach for the item and a cluster of users, including the user, who purchased the item, determining a p-th percentile of the MAXGAP of the user of the cluster of users; Notably, however, Carr does disclose the number of times a user declined a suggestion to replenish an item (Carr: [0031]).
To that accord, Ross does teach for the item and a cluster of users, including the user, who purchased the item, determining a p-th percentile of the MAXGAP of the user of the cluster of users; Ross teaches a product purchase rank or percentile classification of a product purchase relative to all product purchases for a population of customers (Ross: col. 10, ln. 63-col. 11, ln. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the determining of a percentile of the MAXGAP of the user of the cluster of users as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine items with a higher probability of a successful sale (Ross: col. 10, ln. 65-66).
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Kowalchuk (US 20120053951 A1), and in further view of White (US 20130282626 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr further discloses a system comprising:
identifying, using a third set of rules, a personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing; Carr discloses suggesting one or more items to the customer to repurchase (Carr: [0038]; see also: [0023]).
estimating a number of replenishments of the item that the user has made since the user last bought the item from the different retailer, wherein the number of replenishments of the item comprises the number of times the user has replenished the item; Carr discloses identifying the number of times the item has been suggested to the user, and the number of times the item has been declined, including when the items have been purchased (Carr: [0031]; see also: [0023]). In summary, the purchases of the items are tracked in the order data, and the number of times the item has been replenished is merely the difference of the total number of times the item was suggested and the number of times it was declined.
removing from consideration any items from the set of items greater than a p-th percentile of MAXGAP for the item, where the user belongs to a cluster of users who purchase the item; Carr discloses only suggesting the top item suggestions to the user (Carr: [0029]; see also: [0035]).
Carr does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
identifying, using a third set of rules, a personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer;
modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance, and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation;
estimating the independent random variables for the user and remaining items of the set of items for the user.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose where the customer may be purchasing the item from a different merchant (Carr: [0032]).
To that accord, Kowalchuk does teach identifying, using a third set of rules, a personalized list of recommended items for the user to consider replenishing, and a likelihood that the user has purchased the item from a different retailer; Kowalchuk teaches determining a likelihood a consumer will purchase a product at different retailers (Kowalchuk: [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the likelihood a user purchased the item from a different retailer as taught by Kowalchuk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to target prospective consumers for purchasing products (Kowalchuk: [0021]).
Carr in view of Kowalchuk does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance, and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation;
estimating the independent random variables for the user and remaining items of the set of items for the user.
Notably, however, Carr does disclose ranking the regularly purchased item based on various criteria (Carr: [0034]), and determining a purchase frequency of items (Carr: [0030).
To that accord, Zoldi does teach a system comprising:
modeling an elapsed time using at least different (user, item) pairs, wherein a (user, item) pair of at least different (user, item) pairs comprises independent random variables, wherein each independent random variable of the independent random variables comprises a respective expectation and a respective variance, and wherein the respective variance comprises a respective mean replenishment cycle based on the (user, item) pair corresponding to an estimated standard deviation; White teaches a model for user behavior using mutually independent and identically distributed variables, and variance of parameters (White: [0122]), the variance being the square of the standard deviation.
estimating the independent random variables for the user and remaining items of the set of items for the user. White teaches estimating the model parameters (White: [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Carr and Rangan disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the model based on independent random variables that are mutually independent and identically distributed, and estimating parameters as taught by White. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately predict human behavior (White: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Carr (US 20160125506 A1) in view of Licht (US 20180204267 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Carr further discloses displaying, on a graphical user interface of a user device of the user, item information for the item of the set of items available for sale from a retailer and purchased by the user at a first time; Carr discloses suggesting the items for repurchase on a user interface to add to their order (Carr: [0038]; see also: [0023]; Fig. 6, #604).
the historical sales data comprise a record indicating that the user has stopped purchasing the first item. Carr discloses identifying that the user has stopped purchasing the item based on a threshold number of times the user has declined the item suggestion (Carr: [0031-0032]).
Carr does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
displaying, on the graphical user interface of the user device at a second time after the first time, a promotion for the item;
the second time is within a predetermined time period from completion of the personal replenishment cycle for the item that began at the first time;
historical sales data for the item comprises an estimated time period during for repurchasing of the item;
Notably, however, Carr does disclose identifying a frequency of how often a user purchases and item considering items within that time frame (Carr: [0031]).
To that accord, Licht does teach a system comprising:
displaying, on the graphical user interface of the user device at a second time after the first time, a promotion for the item; Lich teaches sales specials for the item to the user (Licht: [0104]; see also: [0038]).
the second time is within a predetermined time period from completion of the personal replenishment cycle for the item that began at the first time; Licht teaches displaying information for the item or another item in need of replenishment to the user within a configurable number of days beyond a date the user is to be notified of the item (Licht: [0102-0103]).
historical sales data for the item comprises an estimated time period during for repurchasing of the item; Licht teaches identifying a frequency at which the item is purchased by the consumer and predicts a date that is likely the consumer will need the item (Licht: [0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Carr disclosing the system for identifying and suggesting items to the user to repurchase and determining when the user stopped purchasing the item with the displaying a promotion for the item, displaying item information within a predetermined time period, and estimating a time period for repurchasing the item as taught by Licht. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to do so in order to identify other items in need of replenishment soon and identify discounts for similar products (Licht: [0103-0104]).
Regarding Claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 Reference U discloses methods of identifying customer purchase patterns using clas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights