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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 10/21/2024 are accepted.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A computer-implemented method for customizing data management based on database analytics, the method comprising: creating lead profiles based on lead information; generating a pipeline, wherein the pipeline comprises staged actions; assigning a lead profile of the lead profiles created to the pipeline; generating a campaign associated with the pipeline; initiating tasks in response to status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions being monitored; and customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating database analytic data, 2) evaluating lead information and making a judgment on lead profiles and manually using pen and paper to create/write the judged lead profiles, 3) evaluating status levels and making a judgement to initiate steps/tasks, 4) evaluating status levels and making a judgement about metrics.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“A computer-implemented method” , “Generating …” – these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored” – these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“A computer-implemented method” , “Generating …” – these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored” – these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example the limitations concerning : “receiving …” is considered an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). The other remaining limitations that mention displaying or generating have already been addressed in the rejection of independent claim 1 above (for ‘applying’ a judicial exception using on a computer and ‘data manipulation’ for display). Thus since the dependent claims are directed to ‘apply it’ or insignificant extra solution activity, these claims are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above. The examiner notes that it additionally recites additional elements of system, memory and processor. These additional elements are considered applying a generic computer to perform the judicial exception. As explained above, these additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 9-14
Claims 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example the limitations concerning : “receiving …” is considered an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). The other remaining limitations that mention displaying or generating have already been addressed in the rejection of independent claim 8 above (for ‘applying’ a judicial exception using on a computer and ‘data manipulation’ for display). Thus since the dependent claims are directed to ‘apply it’ or insignificant extra solution activity, these claims are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above. The examiner notes that it additionally recites additional elements of non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and a processor. These additional elements are considered applying a generic computer to perform the judicial exception. As explained above, these additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 16-20
Claims 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example the limitations concerning : “receiving …” is considered an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). The other remaining limitations that mention displaying or generating have already been addressed in the rejection of independent claim 15 above (for ‘applying’ a judicial exception using on a computer and ‘data manipulation’ for display). Thus since the dependent claims are directed to ‘apply it’ or insignificant extra solution activity, these claims are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al (US Application: US 2007/0011144, published: Jan. 11, 2007, filed: Jul. 8, 2005) in view of Roberts et al (US Application: US 2008/0028021, published: Jan. 31, 2008, filed: Mar. 12, 2007).
With regards to claim 1, Balan et al teaches A computer-implemented method (paragraph 0036 and 0038: a processor and memory is implemented) for customizing data management based on database analytics, the method comprising:
generating a pipeline, wherein the pipeline comprises staged actions (paragraph 0063: a newly created opportunity (pipeline) recorded is created);
assigning a lead profile of the lead profiles created to the pipeline (Fig. 2, paragraph 0063: the opportunity includes a client name/lead);
generating a campaign associated with the pipeline (Fig. 2, ref 146, a campaign is associated with the opportunity via opportunity ID);
initiating tasks in response to status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions being monitored (Figure 2, Figure 6: paragraph 0049, 0050, 0063: evaluation of criteria (interpreted as staged actions) are initiated /implemented to determine status level(s)/stages of the opportunity that is part of a campaign. ); and
… a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions (Figure 13: a user can use an interface to display a summary of opportunity status-levels/stages for a user’s collective opportunities pipeline based criteria).
However Balan et al does not expressly teach creating lead profiles based on lead information; and customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions.
Yet Roberts et al teaches creating lead profiles based on lead information (paragraph 0028: leads information /customer information can be created as a lead record and can be entered manually or entered from third party); and customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline … (paragraphs 0027, 0032, 0036 and 0037, Figure 3: a user interface having a plurality of options (such as contacts hub module access (tab 128) or dashboard/pipeline access) is customizable. The dashboard/pipeline access is customizable via drag and drop selections to display a dashboard having metrics associated with status levels/sales-stages using current metric data that includes a user’s cumulative opportunity pipeline with respect to sales stage(s) for user evaluation/tracking. The user is able to view the cumulative opportunity pipeline data in an interface through interaction with a drop down /collapsible menu bar to select an entry add a variety of charts to the dashboard (the available charts can include up to date tracked pipeline data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Balan et al’s ability to monitor metric-action/criteria to determine current progression of an opportunity within a user’s cumulative sales opportunity pipeline using received customer data, such that the received customer data could have been initially entered into a lead database and the corresponding status-levels /stages with respect to opportunity(ies) can be visualized in a customizable manner, as taught by Roberts et al. The combination would have allowed Balan et al to have implemented an easy to use tool to manage customer data and to allow efficient overview of pipeline states/status.
With regards to claim 2. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches further comprising receiving the lead information from inputted contact information and opportunity information, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches further comprising displaying a collapsible menu bar via the graphical user interface dashboard comprising point-and-click [entries] , wherein an opportunities [entry], when clicked, displays the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraphs 0032, 0036 and 0037, Figure 3 of Roberts et al was explained to teach that a user interface is customizable via drag and drop selections to display a dashboard (having metrics associated with status levels/sales-stages using current metric data that includes a user’s cumulative opportunity pipeline with respect to sales stage(s)). The user is able to view the cumulative opportunity pipeline data in an interface through interaction with a drop down /collapsible menu bar to select an entry add a variety of charts to the dashboard (the available charts can include up to date tracked pipeline data) , and is rejected under similar rationale.
However, although the point and click entries of a drop down menu are taught in the combination of Balan et al and Roberts (to present cumulative pipeline data), the combination as explained in Balan et al and Roberts does not expressly teach of the point-and-click entries are associated with icons.
Yet Roberts et al teaches it is well known for point and click entries of a drop down list to be associated with icons (see Figure 7 and Fig 8, where selectable entries in a collapsible menu drop down can have their own associated icon(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Balan et al and Roberts et al’s ability to allow a user to interact with a collapsible menu drop down to select an opportunities entry (of a plurality of entries) for displaying cumulative opportunities pipeline data, such that the entries could have been modified to have been visually associated with their own corresponding icon, as also taught by Roberts. The combination would have allowed easier identification of available options for more efficient usage of a user interface.
With regards to claim 4. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches further comprising displaying an opportunities and pipeline graphical user interface configured to allow tracking and updating of the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (it was explained that the displayed pipeline of Balan et al and Roberts et al allows a user to evaluate/track the cumulative pipeline data that is displayed), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches a system for customizing data management based on database analytics, the system comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: create lead profiles based on lead information; generate a pipeline, wherein the pipeline comprises staged actions; assign a lead profile of the lead profiles created to the pipeline; generate a campaign associated with the pipeline; initiate tasks in response to status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions being monitored; and customize a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: receive the lead information from inputted contact information and opportunity information, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: display a collapsible menu bar via the graphical user interface dashboard comprising point-and-click icons, wherein an opportunities icon of the point-and-click icons, when clicked, displays the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: display an opportunities and pipeline graphical user interface configured to allow tracking and updating of the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising machine- readable instructions for causing a processor to execute a method for customizing data management based on database analytics, the method comprising: creating lead profiles based on lead information; generating a pipeline, wherein the pipeline comprises staged actions; assigning a lead profile of the lead profiles created to the pipeline; generating a campaign associated with the pipeline; initiating tasks in response to status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions being monitored; and customizing a graphical user interface dashboard for displaying metrics associated with the staged actions being monitored and based on the status levels of the pipeline comprising the staged actions, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 15, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein the method comprises: receiving the lead information from inputted contact information and opportunity information, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 15, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein the method comprises: displaying a collapsible menu bar via the graphical user interface dashboard comprising point-and-click icons, wherein an opportunities icon of the point-and-click icons, when clicked, displays the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 15, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein the method comprises: displaying an opportunities and pipeline graphical user interface configured to allow tracking and updating of the pipeline, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al (US Application: US 2007/0011144, published: Jan. 11, 2007, filed: Jul. 8, 2005) in view of Roberts et al (US Application: US 2008/0028021, published: Jan. 31, 2008, filed: Mar. 12, 2007) in view of Brewer et al (US Application: US 2014/0351063, published: Nov. 27, 2014, filed: May 22, 2013).
With regards to claim 5. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches wherein generating a campaign associated with the pipeline further comprises , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein generating a campaign associated with the pipeline further comprises creating, responsive to a selection, one of an email campaign and an SMS campaign.
Yet Brewer et al teaches … wherein generating a campaign associated with the pipeline further comprises creating, responsive to a selection, one of an email campaign and an SMS campaign (paragraph 0109, Figs 7A, 7B, 13D: a ;user can make a selection to initiate an email campaign and link/associate contact(s) to the campaign).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Balan et al and Roberts et al ability to generate a campaign associated with a pipeline for lead(s), such that the campaign allows user interaction to make a selection to assign an email type campaign for the lead(s), as taught by Brewer et al. The combination would have allowed made it easier to manage collection and flow of marketing information (Brewer et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 12. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al, Roberts et al and Brewer et al teaches wherein the instructions to generate a campaign associated with the pipeline which, when executed, further cause the processor to: create, responsive to a selection, one of an email campaign and an SMS campaign, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al (US Application: US 2007/0011144, published: Jan. 11, 2007, filed: Jul. 8, 2005) in view of Roberts et al (US Application: US 2008/0028021, published: Jan. 31, 2008, filed: Mar. 12, 2007) in view of Oshlag et al (US Application: US 20140173401, published: Jun. 19, 2014, filed: Oct. 30, 2013).
With regards to claim 6. The method of Claim 1, Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches further comprising displaying a contacts hub graphical user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (a contacts hub/module is displayed/accessed from an interface), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … configured to export, when an export contacts icon of the … graphical user interface is clicked, selected contacts to a CSV file.
Yet Oshlag et al teaches configured to export, when an export contacts icon of the … graphical user interface is clicked, selected contacts to a CSV file (paragraph 0044: a button/icon is selected to export contacts into a CSV file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Balan et al and Roberts et al’s ability to present a contact interface, such that the presented interface would further include an ability to export contacts, as taught by Oshlag et al. The combination would have allowed implementation of a data management tool that is user friendly and easy to navigate (Oshlag et al, paragraph 0007).
With regards to claim 13. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al, Roberts et al and Oshlag et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: display a contacts hub graphical user interface configured to export, when an export contacts icon of the contacts hub graphical user interface is clicked, selected contacts are provided to a CSV file, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 15, the combination of Balan et al, Roberts et al, and Oshlag et al teaches wherein the method comprises: displaying a contacts hub graphical user interface configured to export, when an export contacts icon of the contacts hub graphical user interface is clicked, selected contacts to a CSV file, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan et al (US Application: US 2007/0011144, published: Jan. 11, 2007, filed: Jul. 8, 2005) in view of Roberts et al (US Application: US 2008/0028021, published: Jan. 31, 2008, filed: Mar. 12, 2007) in view of Tremblay et al (US Application: US 2022/0343250, published: Oct. 27, 2022, filed: Apr. 21, 2022).
With regards to claim 7. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Balan et al and Roberts et al teaches … a graphical user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … further comprising displaying a workflow list graphical user interface configured to allow creation of a workflow.
Yet Tremblay et al teaches displaying a workflow list graphical user interface configured to allow creation of a workflow (Fig. 76: a workflow list is displayed in an interface that also allows workflow creation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Balan et al and Roberts et al’s ability to implement a graphical user interface to manage business data objects such as leads, opportunities, and evaluation actions/criteria; such that the management would also include further customizing the actions in the context of a workflow, as taught by Tremblay et al. The combination would have implemented a reactive workflow system that is based upon trigger events (Tremblay et al, Abstract).
With regards to claim 14. The system of Claim 8, the combination of Balan et al, Roberts et al and Tremblay et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to: display a workflow list graphical user interface configured to allow creation of a workflow, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 15, the combination of Balan et al, Roberts et al and Tremblay et al teaches wherein the method comprises: displaying a workflow list graphical user interface configured to allow creation of a workflow, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allouche (US Patent: 9886700): This reference teaches lead profile optimization.
Spievak et al (US Application: US 20160173693): This reference teaches assigning a campaign to a lead.
Sollis et al (US Application: US 2014/0244345): This reference teaches a closed loop marketing system that measures campaign effectiveness.
Meggs (US Application: US 20040064360): This reference teaches managing resources with an organization to regulate the flow of new leads as they progress through a sales pipeline.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights