DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 05 December 2025.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 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.” Remarks at 10. It is important to note that in the “practical application” portion of the analysis, it is the additional elements (i.e., elements that exist outside of the abstract idea) that are analyzed. The limitations argued by Applicant all fall into at least one abstract idea grouping and thus they do not provide a practical application. Nor is there support provided by Applicant that shows an improvement in the functionality of the computer. For example, Applicant argues the limitation “readjusting groups in response to addition of new promotional offers in a promotion repository.” Remarks at 10. On its face, the limitation “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” does not provide an improvement in computer functionality and Applicant does not provide support for such a conclusion. This limitation falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is part of the overall concept of determining and assigning an ideal promotion to items in a cart at a point-of-sale. Thus, this limitation does not get analyzed as an additional element. The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are similar -- the argued limitations fall into at least one of the abstract idea groupings and Applicant does not provide support for a conclusion that they result in improved computer functionality.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the limitation “whin 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” (emphasis added). The underlined portion of the limitation, the “thereby” cause, is considered an intended result and is not given patentable weight. In the method claim (claim 1), it expresses an intended result of a process step positively recited (see MPEP 2111.04) and in the systems and mediums claims (claims 6 and 11) this functional limitation does not impose any structural limits on the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). Thus, the “thereby” clause is not given patentable weight.
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, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 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 and 3-5 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 6 and 8-10 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 11 and 13-15 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” 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.
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 by accommodating the new promotional offers in real time; 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.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 recite “the standard deviation is derived each time the new promotion is added to the objective function, and the newly derived standard deviation is used to form a new threshold which is a continuous process” 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 5, 10, and 15 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 and 3-5), a system comprising a memory storing instructions, a communication interface, and a hardware processor (claims 6 and 8-10), or a non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium (claims 11 and 13-15) 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