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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recites “track an at least one revenue amount”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (process), and claims 11-20 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claim 11 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1,
Regarding independent claims 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunications network having a plurality of subscribers, the method comprising:
tracking, by a processor, marketing activities directed toward each subscriber and assigning an Effort (F) parameter for each event in a sequence of events over time;
tracking, by the processor, an at least one revenue amount associated with each subscriber and assigning a Relative Returns (R) parameter associated with revenue in said sequence of events over time;
tracking, by the processor, a plurality of subscriber activity associated with any event in said sequence of events over time;
generating, by the processor, a geometric representation marketing effectiveness in the form of a triangle, where each vertex of the triangle corresponds to a parameter among Effort (F), Effect (E), and Return (R), and the changes in values of F, E, and R define the vertices of the triangle having sides FE, RE, and FR;
generating, by the processor, a nine-pointed circle of the triangle;
calculating a series of variables for each subscriber, wherein the series is based on values and qualities of said nine-pointed circle and said triangle; and
assigning, by the processor, an entropy value to each subscriber based on the series of variables. j
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THE QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT AND REDUCTION OF MARKETING ENTROPY USING GEOMETRIC METHODS AND HEURISTICS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber " (Spec. figure 9).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 11 are recites the abstract idea of quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness for a user. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations because the limitations recite quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber. which pertain to " mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations " expressly categorized under Mathematical concepts. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Also, Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness for a user. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness for a user. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 12) further comprising a step of ranking said plurality of subscribers based on said entropy score.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 13) wherein the ranking step is performed in descending order.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 14) further comprising segmenting said plurality of subscribers into entropy deciles.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 15) wherein said Effort (F) parameter includes a strategy cost sub parameter, a computing cost sub parameter, a relay cost sub parameter, and an operational expenses sub parameter.
claim 6 (Similarly claim 16) wherein said Relative Returns (R) parameter includes a revenue sub parameter, an engagement sub parameter, a satisfaction sub parameter, and an influence spread sub parameter.
claim 7 (Similarly claim 17) wherein said Effects (E) parameter includes an awareness sub parameter, a realization sub parameter, and an action sub parameter.
claim 8 (Similarly claim 18) further comprising identifying a customer journey overlay for each subscriber of said plurality of subscribers.
claim 9 (Similarly claim 19) wherein said customer journey overlay is selected from a group of overlays, the group comprising ascent, descent, and roller coaster.
Claim 10 (Similarly claim 20) wherein said customer journey overlay is selected for each subscriber after a number of events.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 11.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 11 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A processor, and a network
Claim 11. A system, a processor, and a network
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 11 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A system, a processor, and a network which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1a-b and fig. 2). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 11 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber. In example aspects, based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention quantify marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 11 for example but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 11, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, and 11 include a system, a processor and a network. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to quantifying marketing entropy associated with each subscriber in a telecommunication network having a plurality of subscribers by tracking marketing activities, assigning different parameters, generating a geometric representing marketing effectiveness and calculating a series of variables for each subscriber.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Sharma et al. US 11,494,811: Artificial intelligence prediction of high-value social media audience behavior for marketing campaigns, Busbice WO 2022/133012: Systems and methods for generating an optimal allocation of marketing investment. Yao, Yiyu. "The geometry of three-way decision." Applied Intelligence 51.9 (2021): 6298-6325.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “generating, by the processor, a geometric representation marketing effectiveness in the form of a triangle, where each vertex of the triangle corresponds to a parameter among Effort (F), Effect (E), and Return (R), and the changes in values of F, E, and R define the vertices of the triangle having sides FE, RE, and FR; generating, by the processor, a nine-pointed circle of the triangle; calculating a series of variables for each subscriber, wherein the series is based on values and qualities of said nine-pointed circle and said triangle; and assigning, by the processor, an entropy value to each subscriber based on the series of variables”. The reason for not applying any rejection under 35 USC 102/103 claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Botsch, Mario, et al. "Geometric modeling based on triangle meshes." ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Courses. 2006. 1-es.
Yao, Yiyu. "The geometry of three-way decision." Applied Intelligence 51.9 (2021): 6298-6325.
Busbice WO 2022/133012: Systems and methods for generating an optimal allocation of marketing investment.
Randazzo CA 3213394: System and method for providing people-based audience planning.
Sharma et al. US 11,494,811: Artificial intelligence prediction of high-value social media audience behavior for marketing campaigns.
Rosenfeld et al. US 2022/0270142: Intermediary technology for online marketing.
Chauhan et al. US 2022/0108334: Inferring unobserved event probabilities.
Ferber et al. US 2018/0225708: Method and system for forecasting performance of audience clusters.
Hastings et al. US 2006/0085255: System, method and apparatus for modeling and utilizing metrics, processes and technology in marketing applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
February 23, 2026