AIA
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF CLAIM
Claims 1-20 examined after 1/9/26 amendment. Application filed 8/9/2024
Amended 1 8 15
New none
Canceled none
Parent Domestic Priority (Continuity Data)
us-provisional-application US 63545467 20231024us-provisional-application US 63547784 20231108us-provisional-application US 63547782 20231108
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks applicant for amendment to advance prosecution.
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but unfortunately not fully persuasive.
DP rejection withdrawn due to applicant’s TD.
101
As to applicant argument that
No abstract idea (remarks p8)
Examiner
Here, the data relates to marketing, instead of investment there (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018) p.10 slip opinion). It is CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY. It’s fundamental economics and long-standing commercial practice
As to applicant argument that
Integrated practical application (remarks p8)
Examiner
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – computer implemented, computer readable disk or storage, storage device to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant uses steps that can be done in the mind followed by extra-solution activity. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do the calculations and marketing determinations with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
As to applicant argument that
Ex part Desjardins (remarks p8)
Examiner
Not binding precedent
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1
The claims fall within the four 101 statutory categories (1 process 8 machine 15 article of manufacture).
Step 2a
The invention is validating data (validate an appeasement request).
The claims are to ideas:
O Mental Steps
O Math
O Certain Method Of Organizing Human Activity
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer.
Exemplary Claim 1 (8 15 similar)
101
1. A system for validating an appeasement request, comprising:
o [ a computer, comprising a processor and a memory, the computer configured to: ]
o determine an appeasement request pattern for a customer;
o determine an appeasement application pattern for a customer service representatives assigned to the customer;
o mine data associated with the appeasement request;
o mine other data associated with the customer or the customer service representatives; and
o validate an appeasement request based on the mined data and the mined other data
o collect feedback data to perform reinforcement learning to eliminate bias from interactions with customers
[Generic additional element]
+
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Behavior,
Math,
Mental Steps
Alice
clearinghouse
computer implemented
Bilski
hedge
computer implemented
Ultramercial
Advertising
computer implemented
Here
Validation of marketing data
computer implemented
Here the data label is appeasement.
SEE statistical analysis in (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018). Here, the data relates to marketing, instead of investment there (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018) p.10 slip opinion). It is CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY. It’s fundamental economics and long-standing commercial practice.
The independent claims implement the abstract idea by generic computer, generic storage, generic storage, processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer, the ordered combination “spelling out” how to computer implement it, Intellectual Ventures.
Similar to the clearinghouse in Alice and the computer implemented hedge in Bilski, here the idea is applied generally as pointed out by Applicant’s Specification
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer and machine learning.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – computer implemented, computer readable disk or storage, storage device to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant uses steps that can be done in the mind followed by extra-solution activity. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do the calculations and marketing with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Claim 1 8 15
1. A system for validating an appeasement request, comprising:
o a computer, comprising a processor and a memory, the computer configured to:
o determine an appeasement request pattern for a customer;
o determine an appeasement application pattern for a customer service representatives assigned to the customer;
o mine data associated with the appeasement request;
o mine other data associated with the customer or the customer service representatives; and
o validate an appeasement request based on the mined data and the mined other data
o collect feedback data to perform reinforcement learning to eliminate bias from interactions with customers
CLAIM 2 9 16
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the appeasement request comprises one or more of: an appeasement reason, order data, shipping data and audit data.
CLAIM 3 10 17
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the other data associated with the customer or the customer service representatives comprises one or more of: one or more messages between the customer and the customer service representatives, profile information of the customer, profile information of the customer service representatives, and appeasement history data for customer segments that include the customer.
CLAIM 4 11 18
4. The system of claim 1, wherein validating the appeasement request further comprises determining an appeasement allowance.
CLAIM 5 12 19
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to: determine that an association between the customer service representatives and a group of customers indicates one or more fraudulent appeasement requests.
CLAIM 6 13 20
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the appeasement application pattern is based, at least in part, on a history of appeasements offered to one or more customers.
CLAIM 7 14
7. The system of claim 1, wherein validating the appeasement request further comprises limiting an appeasement offer associated with the appeasement request.
Dependent claims
CLAIM 2 9 16 the idea itself plus description of data MPEP 2111.05
CLAIM 3 10 17 the idea itself plus description of data MPEP 2111.05
CLAIM 4 11 18 the idea itself
CLAIM 5 12 19 and 6 13 and 7 14 20 the idea itself
Step 2b
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied.
Viewed as a whole, the claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea amount(s) to a ‘computer’, ‘memory’, ‘processor’ ‘server’ which use generic elements, MPEP 2016.05(d). Applicant specification says additional elements are generic.
The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself.
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
To find some inventive concept, one can look to Applicant's own words in Spec ¶ 3. There, he states the problem addressed is consumer behavior and appeasing customers legitimately -- not fraudulently -- dissatisfied.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating using generic technology (storage, computer, storage, processor – at a high level of generality).
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims fail step 2b too.
POINT OF CONTACT
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 BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621