DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 2/24/26, wherein:
Claims 2-15 are currently pending.
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 .
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 6-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12062075. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to claim 6:
‘075 claim 1 discloses a method comprising: determining a data set comprising: a current vehicle of a potential customer, a current transaction amount associated with the current vehicle, a potential replacement vehicle for the potential customer, and a potential transaction amount associated with the potential replacement vehicle {‘075 claim 1; a method of automatically generating a communication for a target lead, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of leads, each lead comprising: contact information for a potential customer; a current vehicle of the potential customer; a current transaction amount associated with the current vehicle; a potential replacement vehicle for the potential customer; and a potential transaction amount associated with the potential replacement vehicle; where the receiving of the plurality of leads determines the data set};
determining, for a potential transaction in which the current vehicle and the current transaction amount are replaced with the potential replacement vehicle and the potential transaction amount, an alert, wherein determining the alert comprises {‘075 claim 1; determining, for a potential transaction in which the current vehicle and the current transaction amount are replaced with the potential replacement vehicle and the potential transaction amount, the target lead, wherein determining the target lead comprises}:
using a primary processing node, dividing the data set into a plurality of data segments and distributing each of the plurality of data segments to respective interim processing nodes {‘075 claim 1; using a primary processing node, dividing the plurality of leads into a plurality of data segments and distributing each of the plurality of data segments to respective interim processing nodes};
determining that a resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes satisfies at least a resource threshold {‘075 claim 1; determining that a resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes exceeds a resource threshold};
using a first interim processing node, based on determining that the resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes satisfies at least the resource threshold, dividing a first data segment of the plurality of data segments into first and second data subsegments and distributing the first and second data subsegments to corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes {‘075 claim 1; using a first interim processing node, based on the determination that the resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes exceeds the resource threshold, dividing a first data segment of the plurality of data segments into first and second data subsegments and distributing the first and second data subsegments to corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes}; and
using corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes, processing each of the first and second data subsegments in parallel using the data set to determine, based on at least one selection criteria, the alert, wherein the at least one selection criteria comprises a transaction satisfying a transaction threshold {‘075 claim 1; using corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes, processing each of the first and second data subsegments in parallel using the plurality of leads to determine, based on at least one selection criteria, the target lead of the plurality of leads, wherein the at least one selection criteria comprises a requirement that the target lead is exported only if a number of transactions within a particular period of time is less than a threshold}; and
providing the alert {‘075 claim 1; generating a communication for the target lead}.
Referring to claim 7:
‘075 claim 1 discloses receiving user input associated with the potential customer, wherein determining the data set is based at least in part on the user input {‘075 claim 1; receiving a plurality of leads}.
Referring to claim 8:
‘075 claim 2 discloses wherein providing the alert further comprises sending an email comprising information associated with the alert {‘075 claim 2; generating a customized email to be sent to the potential customer}.
Referring to claim 9:
‘075 claim 3 discloses wherein providing the alert further comprises causing presentation, via a graphical user interface, of the alert {‘075 claim 3; transmitting an alert to a remote computing device}.
Claims 2-4 and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12062075, in view of Colson et al. (US 20100217616). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to claim 2:
‘075 claim 1 discloses claim 2 for similar reasons as given above for claims 6 & 7, with the following additions:
‘075 discloses a system for lead generation. ‘075 does not disclose a system comprising: a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the computer readable storage medium, wherein the program instructions configure the one or more processors to at least.
However, Colson discloses a similar system for targeting and customized marketing of prospective customers of vehicles (abstract and [0009]). Colson discloses a system comprising: a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the computer readable storage medium, wherein the program instructions configure the one or more processors to at least {Colson [0042]; An exemplary storage medium may be coupled to the processor, such that the processor can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium [0042]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the lead system disclosed in ‘075 to incorporate the computer system as taught by Colson because this would provide a manner for performing the invention using hardware and software (Colson [0042]), thereby aiding the user by implementing the invention on a computer.
Referring to claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 8.
Referring to claim 4:
Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 9.
Referring to claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 2.
Referring to claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 7.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 3.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 4.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12062075, in view of Colson et al. (US 20100217616), and further in view of Seergy et al. (US 20120036033). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to claim 5:
‘075 claim 3, as modified by Colson, discloses a system for lead generation. ‘075 claim 3, as modified by Colson, does not disclose wherein the primary processing node and the first and second secondary processing nodes are executed via a cloud computing service.
However, Seergy discloses a similar system for performing used automobile transactions (abstract). Seergy discloses wherein the primary processing node and the first and second secondary processing nodes are executed via a cloud computing service {Seergy [0017]; cloud computing may be utilized by a computing devices [0017]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the lead system disclosed in ‘075 and Colson to incorporate the cloud computing service as taught by Seergy because this would provide a manner for computing devices using cloud computing (Seergy [0017]), thereby aiding the user by providing improved collaboration/sharing.
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 5.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as given above for claim 5.
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 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 2 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 6 and 11 recite a method and a system, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; and
one or more processors in communication with the computer readable storage medium, wherein the program instructions configure the one or more processors to at least:
receive user input associated with a potential customer;
determine, based at least in part on the user input, a data set comprising:
a current vehicle of the potential customer, a current transaction amount associated with the current vehicle, a potential replacement vehicle for the potential customer, and a potential transaction amount associated with the potential replacement vehicle;
determine, for a potential transaction in which the current vehicle and the current transaction amount are replaced with the potential replacement vehicle and the potential transaction amount, an alert, wherein determining the alert comprises:
using a primary processing node, dividing, by client entity, the data set into a plurality of data segments and distributing each of the plurality of data segments to respective interim processing nodes, wherein each data segment of the plurality of data segments is associated with a respective client entity;
determining that a resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes satisfies at least a resource threshold;
using a first interim processing node, based on determining that the resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes satisfies at least the resource threshold, dividing a first data segment of the plurality of data segments into first and second data subsegments and distributing the first and second data subsegments to corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes; and
using corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes, processing each of the first and second data subsegments in parallel using the data set to determine, based on at least one selection criteria, the alert, wherein the at least one selection criteria comprises a transaction satisfying a transaction threshold; and
provide the alert
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification at [0017] indicates that the invention is directed to generating and sending alerts to dealers or customers when customers are eligible to enter new financial arrangements favorable to the customer, which may significantly increase the dealers’ revenue. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 2 and 11 recites the additional elements of a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; one or more processors, and processing nodes, which are computer components. Claim 6 recites only processing nodes as additional elements. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-10, and 12-15 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 2, 6, and 11 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 2, 6, and 11; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
WITHDRAWN, in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant states that Applicant will consider filing terminal disclaimer(s) at a time when the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101
The Claims Recite an Abstract Idea (Step 2A/Prong One)
Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 2 reciting “using a primary processing node, dividing, by client entity, the data set into a plurality of data segments and distributing each of the plurality of data segments to respective interim processing nodes, wherein each data segment of the plurality of data segments is associated with a respective client entity” and “using a first interim processing node, based on determining that the resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes satisfies at least the resource threshold, dividing a first data segment of the plurality of data segments into first and second data subsegments and distributing the first and second data subsegments to corresponding first and second secondary processing nodes” are not methods of organizing human activity, nor is the alert a recitation of human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the portions of the claim which include the processing nodes are clearly NOT considered part of the method of organizing human activity, but are additional elements (see rejection, supra). Further, the two recited claim limitations are indented under the claim limitation regarding determining the alert. Therefore, each of these recited limitations are considered as part of the step of determining the alert. As is pointed out above, the Specification at [0017] indicates that the invention is directed to generating and sending alerts to dealers or customers when customers are eligible to enter new financial arrangements favorable to the customer, which may significantly increase the dealers’ revenue. The limitations claimed are part of a marketing/sales activity. The use of computing systems does not remove the claims from the methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The Claims Are Not Directed to a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two)
Applicant then argues that claim 2 integrates the exception into a practical application in that the claims “recite a specific arrangement of a primary, interim, and secondary nodes with dynamic subdivision triggered by resource thresholds and parallel execution to achieve scalable processing efficiency.” Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). When the instant Specification is evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, it is found that the Specification does not provide technical details. Indicating that nodes should be operated in parallel is merely conclusory and without any specific technical details. Further, there is no indication that the claims are directed to overcoming any technical problem in parallel processing or that there is a need for improved processing efficiency. The Specification does not even mention the goal of achieving “scalable processing efficiency.” Unlike Enfish, the Specification does not indicate that the focus of the claims is an improvement to computer functionality, itself. Therefore, the Examiner must determine the claim does not improve technology.
The Claims Are Not Directed to “Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea (Step 2B)
Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself, when taken as an ordered combination. Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant then refers to several limitations of claim 2, but does not indicate how the claim elements provide more than well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, there is no evidence in the Specification which provides that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea. Merely reciting the claim limitations does not provide persuasive evidence regarding which additional elements allegedly provide more than well-understood, routine conventional activities or how the claim limitations provide more than well-understood, routine conventional activities.
Applicant comments that the Office does not identify any evidence that the claims provide only well-understood, routine conventional activities and cites to Berkheimer. However, this consideration was not needed in the Office’s analysis and therefore, the Office did not need to provide such evidence.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112
The rejection is withdrawn, in response to the Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights