DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 11 August 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended. Claims 5, 10, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the claimed subject matter integrates judicial exception in terms of improvement in functionality of the computer” and cites to paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of the specification, further arguing “the claimed subject matter integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by solving a technical problem arising in computer-based retail systems, namely, high computational latency and repeated recomputation when dynamically incorporating newly introduced promotional offers during real-time POS processing.” Remarks at 12-13. The cited paragraphs describe how a new offer is analyzed and compared to the group. The cited paragraphs do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem related to latency or repeated recomputation. Rather, the cited paragraphs and the limitations in the claims describe steps that can be performed mentally and that fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. As indicated in the rejection below, the step “when the new promotional offer is introduced, the new promotional offer is compared with the group specific distribution to identify position of the new promotional offer in relation to an existing behavior and to measure the level of deviation and a severity of the deviation, and a magnitude of deviation of the new promotional offer in comparison to the centroid is used as a level of rejection, and a mean plus or minus within variation of the group specific distribution (WVS) act as an initial threshold to include the new promotional offer, wherein the severity of the deviation is identified by considering the WVS” can be performed by a human either entirely mentally or with the use of pen and paper. Humans are capable of comparing a new offer with a group distribution, determining deviation, etc. Subject matter eligibility cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention “improves computerized real-time promotion processing by enabling continuous incorporation of newly added promotional offers into an LP-based recommendation engine during POS processing without requiring all newly added offers to be manually handled outside the running recommendation flow.” Remarks at 14. The question: where in the specification is the support for this conclusion? Were POSs previously unable to process data in this manner? Is this a problem solved to the present invention? At present, all limitations but the hardware components such as a processor, fall into at least one abstract idea grouping. Subject matter eligibly cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. Thus, processing data using steps that can be performed by a human does not result in subject matter eligibility. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention “improves memory usage and processor efficiency by limiting computations to localized group-specific structures, thereby enabling scalable real-time processing in environments with continuously changing input data.” Remarks at 15. Giving a processor or memory less to do does not equate to a technical improvement. This argument is not persuasive.
In Remarks at 15-16, Applicant cites to additional paragraphs in the specification and argues added limitations. These paragraphs do not support a conclusion that the limitations incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application, as defined in the current § 101 guidance.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues many of the same points as under Step 1A Prong Two and Examiner’s response is the same as set out above.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, and 4 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 6, 8, and 9 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 11, 13, and 14 recite a non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture. Thus, all claims “pass” Step 1 of the 35 USC § 101 analysis.
Step 2A-Prong One
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the limitation “wherein the LP algorithm optimizes the plurality of ideal promotional offers based on a plurality of objective functions” is considered a mathematical concept and thus falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the limitation “derive, a centroid and standard deviation (SD) from an objective function specific promotional offer distribution (POD) wherein the POD is derived from a plurality of existing promotional offers pertaining to the objective function of the linear programming algorithm” is considered a mathematical concept and thus falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the limitation “derive, an objective function specific dynamic threshold from the centroid and SD of the objective function specific POD” is considered a mathematical concept and thus falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the limitation “within each group, distance between two promotional offers is derived using a Jaccard index and is repeated for all pairs of promotional offers of the group and a distance between two promotional offers is derived by considering entire syntax of the new promotional offers or part of the syntax of the new promotional offer, wherein the distance between the two promotional offers is derived by considering only an qualifier type of the new promotional offer or by considering only a calculation part of the new promotional offer” is considered a mathematical concept and thus falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the “comparing the new promotional offer with the centroid of each group and the new promotional offer is assigned to the group with a nearest centroid for further validation performed based on a position of the new promotional offer and a level of deviation, wherein the position is identified by comparing the new promotional offer with a group specific distribution in relation to the existing promotional offers, wherein the further validation includes: determining whether the position of the new promotional offer is within or outside the dynamic threshold of any one of the group among the groups, in response to determining that the position of the new promotional offer is within the dynamic threshold, the new promotional offer is assigned with the objective function of the linear programming; in response to determining that the position of the new promotional offer is outside the dynamic threshold, the new promotional offer is assigned for manual intervention to create a new objective function” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a user manually making comparisons, making determinations, and making assignments. Thus, these claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the “the dynamic threshold is formed in accordance with addition of new promotional offer added in the group and nature of promotional offer added in terms of influence of the new promotional offer in altering the newly derived standard deviation of the group” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a user manually using known or derived information to form a dynamic threshold. Thus, these claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
In claims 1, 6, and 11, the “when the new promotional offer is introduced, the new promotional offer is compared with the group specific distribution to identify position of the new promotional offer in relation to an existing behavior and to measure the level of deviation and a severity of the deviation, and a magnitude of deviation of the new promotional offer in comparison to the centroid is used as a level of rejection, and a mean plus or minus within variation of the group specific distribution (WVS) act as an initial threshold to include the new promotional offer, wherein the severity of the deviation is identified by considering the WVS” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a user manually comparing a new offer with other offers to determine its position and considering WVS when determining deviation. Thus, these claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the concept of determining and assigning an ideal promotion to items in a cart at a point-of-sale (see, for example, “receive, a plurality of existing promotional offers from a promotion repository of a retailer wherein the plurality of existing promotional offers is applicable for a particular time frame; scan, a plurality of items in the cart at a point-of-sale (POS) counter; pass, the plurality of scanned items and the plurality of existing promotional offers to a linear programming (LP) algorithm to assign a plurality of ideal promotional offers to the plurality of the scanned items, wherein the LP algorithm optimizes the plurality of ideal promotional offers based on a plurality of objective functions; derive, a centroid and standard deviation (SD) from an objective function specific promotional offer distribution (POD) wherein the POD is derived from a plurality of existing promotional offers pertaining to the objective function of the linear programming algorithm; derive, an objective function specific dynamic threshold from the centroid and SD of the objective function specific POD, wherein the dynamic threshold is calculated based on similarity among the criteria of existing promotional offers for the objective function and nature of variation among the existing promotional offers for the objective function; add new promotional offers into a group among a plurality of groups in the promotion repository when the retailer introduces new promotional offers at an interval dynamically and accordingly readjusting the groups upon addition of the new promotional offers, within each group, distance between two promotional offers is derived using a Jaccard index and is repeated for all pairs of promotional offers of the group, thereby managing bidirectional relationship with the POS counter; processing the new promotional offers applicable in a time frame, and grouping the new promotional offer into corresponding objective function; and assign, a new promotional offer by: an automatic route when the new promotional offer lies within the objective function specific dynamic threshold, and a manual route when the new promotional offer lies outside an objective function specific dynamic threshold; comparing the new promotional offer with the centroid of each group and the new promotional offer is assigned to the group with a nearest centroid for further validation performed based on a position of the new promotional offer and a level of deviation, wherein the position is identified by comparing the new promotional offer with a group specific distribution in relation to the existing promotional offers, wherein the further validation includes: determining whether the position of the new promotional offer is within or outside the dynamic threshold of any one of the group among the groups, in response to determining that the position of the new promotional offer is within the dynamic threshold, the new promotional offer is assigned with the objective function of the linear programming; in response to determining that the position of the new promotional offer is outside the dynamic threshold, the new promotional offer is assigned for manual intervention to create a new objective function update continuously, the linear programming algorithm by accommodating the new promotional offers in real time, wherein updating the linear programming algorithm comprises continuously incorporating newly added promotional offers and corresponding computed centroid and standard deviation during real-time POS processing, wherein the standard deviation is derived each time the new promotional offer is added to the objective function, and the newly derived standard deviation is used to form a new threshold which is a continuous process, wherein when new promotional offers are added based on the derived objective function, the linear programming algorithm automates the objective function used in a promotion recommendation engine in accordance with a set of promotional offers owned by the retailer, and the dynamic threshold is formed in accordance with addition of new promotional offer added in the group and nature of promotional offer added in terms of influence of the new promotional offer in altering the newly derived standard deviation of the group, wherein when the new promotional offer is introduced, the new promotional offer is compared with the group specific distribution to identify position of the new promotional offer in relation to an existing behavior and to measure the level of deviation and a severity of the deviation, and a magnitude of deviation of the new promotional offer in comparison to the centroid is used as a level of rejection, and a mean plus or minus within variation of the group specific distribution (WVS) act as an initial threshold to include the new promotional offer, wherein the severity of the deviation is identified by considering the WVS, wherein an output of the adopter is fed to the promotion recommendation engine and in accordance with assignment of the objective function assignment to the new promotional offers by the adopter, the promotion recommendation engine executes the linear programming algorithm; and maintain a bidirectional relationship with the POS by the promotion recommendation engine, wherein the promotion recommendation engine receives the plurality of cart items and executes optimization of the ideal promotional offer by processing the plurality of promotional offers applicable in a time frame, and providing the new promotional offers to the POS; and assign, the ideal promotion offer to the cart items wherein, the linear programming algorithm jointly processes the existing promotional offers and new promotional offers to assign the ideal promotional offer” in claim 6). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 8, and 13 recite “the centroid of the existing promotional offers is derived from a distance measure between each pair of the existing promotional offers” which is considered a mathematical concept. This limitation is also part of the concept, shown above, that falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 3, 8, and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 9, and 14 recite “POD is specific to each objective function and includes a dynamic distribution due to changing centroid and standard deviation during addition of the new promotional offer” which is part of the concept, shown above, that falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 4, 9, and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a hardware processor (claims 1, 3, and 4), a system comprising a memory storing instructions, a communication interface, and a hardware processor (claims 6, 8, and 9), or a non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium (claims 11, 13, and 14) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The processor, system, or storage medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights