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 1-18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 (Group I) in the reply filed on 04/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II)
The requirement is still deemed proper and it therefore made FINAL.
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 1-18 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 1-9 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 10-18 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 1-18 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claim 10 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Original) A method comprising:
obtaining merchant data for a plurality of merchants;
adjusting the merchant data to obtain adjusted data based upon a ratio of data types in the merchant data;
performing a first filtering operation on the plurality of merchants based on the adjusted data for identifying a first subset of small business merchants from the plurality of merchants;
performing a second filtering operation on the first subset of small business merchants for identifying a second subset of small business merchants from the first subset of small business merchants, wherein the second filtering operation is based at least upon a volume of transactions of the small business merchants;
applying one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants associated with a pre-determined criteria to obtain processed data for the second subset of small business merchants;
calculating an index value for the second subset of small business merchants, wherein the index is calculated as a function of the processed data of the second subset of small business merchants and a historical baseline; and
generating a report analyzing a trend based on the index value, the report comprising additional information for the second subset of small business merchants.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING DATA SETS USING INDEXING" emphasizes the need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants." (Spec. figure 4).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants. which pertain to "agreements in form of contract, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 10 recites the abstract idea of obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants. which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein applying the one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants comprises determining a proportion of total sales contributed by each merchant of the second subset of small business merchants.
claim 3 (Similarly Claim 12) wherein calculating the index comprises extrapolating a total revenue for a category of merchants based on the processed data of the second subset of small business merchants and a total number of merchants in the category of merchants.
claims 4 (Similarly Claim 13) wherein the total number of merchants is determined based on census data.
claims 5 (Similarly Claim 14) wherein the ratio of data types in the merchant data comprises a ratio of cash transactions and card transactions.
claims 6 (Similarly Claim 15) wherein the ratio of cash transactions and card transactions is calculated based on a subset of the merchant data comprising cash transactions and card transactions.
claim 7 (Similarly Claim 16) wherein applying the one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants comprises adjusting the index or removing the index from the report prior to publishing the report.
claim 8 (Similarly Claim 17) further comprising categorizing the merchant data based on a pre-configured mapping of merchant identifiers associated with the plurality of merchants to a set of standardized merchant categories.
claim 9 (Similarly Claim 18) identifying a single merchant of the plurality of merchants, the single merchant associated with multiple merchant identifiers; and
aggregating data associated with the multiple merchant identifiers under the single merchant based on one or more of a shared location, a shared tax identifier, or a shared merchant category associated with the multiple merchant identifiers.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 10.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-18 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 10 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. No additional element
Claim 10. A system, one or more memories, and processor
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 10 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, memory and a processor 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, " The methods may also be at least partially embodied in the form of a computer into which computer program code is loaded or executed, such that, the computer becomes a special purpose computer for practicing the methods. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the computer program code segments configure the processor to create specific logic circuits. The methods may alternatively be at least partially embodied in application specific integrated circuits for performing the methods. (Spec. fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 (Similarly claim 10) 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 obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants 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 is directed to for obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants. 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 2-9, and 11-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 10 respectively, for example, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 10 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 1-18 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 10 include a system, memory, and a processor. 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 for obtaining a merchant data to generate a report analyzing a trend based on the calculated index value, wherein the report comprise additional information for the business merchants.
Claims 1-18 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.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejection will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tavares et al. US 2012/0191506 (hereinafter Tavares).
Regarding Claim 1:
(Original) A method comprising:
obtaining merchant data for a plurality of merchants; (Tavares [0006], “Each POS terminal is configured to collect transaction data as a function of transactions effectuated via the POS terminal collect transaction data as a function of transaction effectuated”. Tavares [0084], “certain types of information and to collect certain types of information. For example, each POS terminal 120 may collect and/or be associated with terminal information and transaction information, as described more fully below”. Also, see [0076], [0094], [0091], [0097])
adjusting the merchant data to obtain adjusted data based upon a ratio of data types in the merchant data; (Tavares [0028], “market segments, etc.”. [0184], “the POS transaction data may also need to be adjusted based on seasonality or other factors … fluctuations in sales that may be related to a given month or season. For example, retail sales are generally higher in December than in October”. Tavares [0170], [0173], “the merchant's business has grown 7.6 percent by dollar volume, 8.8 percent by transaction and 4.5 percent by average ticket. To the right of this graph is another graph showing the year-over-year growth of a group of merchants that are similarly situated to the merchant who is receiving the statement. For example, if the merchant is located in San Francisco, report 1104 may show how other merchants in the San Francisco area performed in a comparison between November 2009 and November 2010. Optionally, statement 1100 may include a report 1106 showing the total amount funded to the merchant's account over time”.)
performing a first filtering operation on the plurality of merchants based on the adjusted data for identifying a first subset of small business merchants from the plurality of merchants; (Tavares [0110], [0144-0147], “segment for a relevant timeframe. For example, the reliable portion of the market data 250 may be filtered such that only merchants in the gasoline classification are analyzed. In certain embodiments, breaking down the market data 250 may include identifying relevant trend events from block 804 and their corresponding market data 250 from block 808”. Also, see [0175-0178], figures 2-3 and 16-18 EN: disclose filtering to identify a first subset of merchants of small business.)
performing a second filtering operation on the first subset of small business merchants for identifying a second subset of small business merchants from the first subset of small business merchants, wherein the second filtering operation is based at least upon a volume of transactions of the small business merchants; (Tavares figures 11-14 & 21-27 [0009-0010], “The projected sales volume may be shown in dollars. Or, in some cases, a scaling factor may be applied to the projected sales volume to provide an indexed value”. [0101], “extracted or classified data, such as data extracted for a particular time period, data extracted for all records having the same store identifier, data classified by merchant type, data classified by location (e.g., merchant region, geographic region, etc.) … transaction volumes”. Also, see [0110-0111], [0118], [0175], [0180], [0182-183])
applying one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants associated with a pre-determined criteria to obtain processed data for the second subset of small business merchants; (Tavares [0110], “comparisons may be made, such as to see whether sales are increasing or decreasing …. Filter out”. [0147], [0162] & , “the reliable portion of the market data 250 may be filtered such that only merchants in the gasoline classification are analyzed. In certain embodiments, breaking down the market data 250 may include identifying relevant trend events from block 804 and their corresponding market data 250 from block 808”. [0182], “the total sales volume for all of the POS transaction data could be filtered based on the merchant classifier so that all that remains are transactions relating to a given industry, such as electronics (EN: pre-determined criteria)”. EN: also, Tavares figures disclose/display filtering data based on rule and pre-determined criteria example see figures 11-24)
calculating an index value for the second subset of small business merchants, wherein the index is calculated as a function of the processed data of the second subset of small business merchants and a historical baseline; and (Tavares [0110], “uses the aggregated POS data 240 (e.g., either directly from the data storage subsystem 145 or via the aggregation subsystem 140) to generate indexed or normalized values to permit comparisons between defined timeframes, such as for every month. Once indexed, various comparisons may be made, such as to see whether sales are increasing or decreasing from month to month, or even to project future sales. Hence, processing subsystem 150 may be used to produce indexed sales values 252 to permit such comparison or projections. The indexed sales values 252 may be for an entire market or for a given industry using industry subset data 253. For example, the indexed sales values 252 may relate to all retail sales for the United States, or all retail sales within a given state or region. The industry subset may filter the aggregated POS data into specific market or industry segments, such as by electronics, petroleum, restaurant, and the like. This may be done using merchant classification codes or other industry classifications. Typically, the POS data 240 will be in terms of sales volume (in dollars). However, other numbers could be used, such as total number of transactions, average ticket and the like”. [0144], “a statistical variation (e.g., an amount of variation) may be calculated between the POS baseline and the market data”. Also, see [0110-0112], [0179], [0180-0182], [0187-0188], claim 2, [0014-0015])
generating a report analyzing a trend based on the index value, the report comprising additional information for the second subset of small business merchants. (Tavares [0017], “generate a market trend report corresponding to a given market. A market dataset is identified from the aggregated POS data, and market trend data is generated from the market dataset. Further, graphical report data can be output as a function of the market trend data and is usable by a user device to display a market trend report. [0027], “generate a market trend for a market. This is done by identifying a market dataset from the aggregated POS data, and generating market trend data from the market dataset. A reporting subsystem is communicatively coupled with the trend processing subsystem and is configured to output graphical report data as a function of the market trend data in response to the reporting request”. Also, see [0102], [0118], [0151], [0120], [0123], [0162], [0164], [0173], [0180], figure 3)
Regarding Claim 2:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 1,
Tavares further teach wherein applying the one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants comprises determining a proportion of total sales contributed by each merchant of the second subset of small business merchants. (Tavares [0007], [0111], ” The indexed sales values 252 may be determined by taking the total sales volume (in terms of dollars) of the aggregated POS data 240 for a given timeframe and applying various factors in an attempt to filter out fluctuations between time frames that may prevent fair comparisons between timeframes”. [0116], “market data 250 from January 2010 illustrates that same store dollar volumes are up 7.1 -percent, as noted in the headline zone 404. The first explanation zone 406a “Also, see [0159], [0161], [0165], “total percentage”. [0180], fig. 10)
Regarding Claim 3:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 1,
Tavares further teach wherein calculating the index comprises extrapolating a total revenue for a category of merchants based on the processed data of the second subset of small business merchants and a total number of merchants in the category of merchants. (Tavares [0105], “a beef scare relating to a grocery store in a particular week may correlate to a drop in revenue for that grocery merchant for that week”. [0111], “The indexed sales values 252 may be determined by taking the total sales volume (in terms of dollars) of the aggregated POS data 240 for a given timeframe and applying various factors in an attempt to filter out fluctuations between time frames that may prevent fair comparisons between timeframes”. Also, see [0165], [0170], [0173], [0180], [0183], [0183], fig. 4, 10A-1010D disclose total revenue and number of merchants”)
Regarding Claim 4:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 3,
Tavares further teach wherein the total number of merchants is determined based on census data. (Tavares [0093], “the transaction data … may include any type of information …. Demographic information (EN: census data) (e.g, relating to the payor). [0101], “location (e.g., merchant region, geographic region, etc.)”. [0105], “macroeconomic data 27 4 may include information relating to gross domestic product, personal bankruptcy, unemployment, total consumer debt, etc. For example, an increase in unemployment in a geographic region may correlate to an increase in fast food sales for that region … a particular subset of consumers”. Also, see [0021], [0164])
Regarding Claim 7:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 1,
Tavares further teach wherein applying the one or more rules to the adjusted data of the second subset of small business merchants comprises adjusting the index or removing the index from the report prior to publishing the report. (Tavares [0119], “this and/or other functionality may include removal of irrelevant and/or unreliable data ( e.g., or identification of relevant and/ or reliable data. As such, certain embodiments generate a reliable portion of the market data 250 for use in generating the report data 260 … the day may be removed”. [0184], “transaction data need to be adjusted based on seasonality or other factors. This is to account for fluctuations in sales that may be related to a given month or season. [0119], “other functionality may include removal of irrelevant and/or unreliable data ( e.g., or identification of relevant and/or reliable data”.)
Regarding Claim 8:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 1,
Tavares further teach further comprising categorizing the merchant data based on a pre-configured mapping of merchant identifiers associated with the plurality of merchants to a set of standardized merchant categories. (Tavares [0090-0093], “a merchant classifier code (MCC) defined by a government standard is used to identify each merchant. In other embodiments, a proprietary code may be used. Further, in some embodiments, each merchant is identified by a single classifier, even where the merchant operates in multiple markets. For example, a megastore may sell groceries, general merchandise, gasoline, insurance services, etc. … a single classifier ( e.g., a default classifier, or a classifier chosen to comply with a particular standard) and by one or more other classifiers ( e.g., according to proprietary classification systems). Also, see [0101], figs. 4 and 10)
Regarding Claim 9:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising:
Tavares further teach identifying a single merchant of the plurality of merchants, the single merchant associated with multiple merchant identifiers; and (Tavares [0090-0093], “a merchant classifier code (MCC) defined by a government standard is used to identify each merchant. In other embodiments, a proprietary code may be used. Further, in some embodiments, each merchant is identified by a single classifier, even where the merchant operates in multiple markets. For example, a megastore may sell groceries, general merchandise, gasoline, insurance services, etc. … a single classifier ( e.g., a default classifier, or a classifier chosen to comply with a particular standard) and by one or more other classifiers ( e.g., according to proprietary classification systems). Also, see [0101], figs. 4 and 10)
aggregating data associated with the multiple merchant identifiers under the single merchant based on one or more of a shared location, a shared tax identifier, or a shared merchant category associated with the multiple merchant identifiers. (Tavares figures 10A-10C 20-32 [0023], “the graphical report data further permits the display of the growth comparison for the given merchant along with a growth comparison for an aggregation of similarly situated merchants”.[0147], “the reliable portion of the market data 250 may be filtered such that only merchants in the gasoline classification are analyzed. In certain embodiments, breaking down the market data 250 may include identifying relevant trend events from block 804 and their corresponding market data 250 from block 808”. [0173], “group of merchants that are similarly situated to the merchant who is receiving the statement. For example, if the merchant is located in San Francisco”.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 8 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 9 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
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.
Claims 5-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares et al. US 2012/0191506 (hereinafter Tavares) in view of Korolev et al. US 2019/0371133 (hereinafter Korolev).
Regarding Claim 5:
(Original) Tavares disclose the method of claim 1,
Tavares further teach wherein the ratio of data types in the merchant data comprises a ratio of [[cash]] transactions and card transactions. (Tavares [0019], payment instrument types, and the market dataset may be identified by a payment
type identifier. A variety of payment instrument types may be used, such as credit payment instruments, debit payment instruments, open loop prepaid payment instruments, closed loop prepaid payment instruments, mobile payment instruments,
e-commerce payment instruments and the like”. [0067] figs. 30-32 EN: disclose a ratio of different transaction include a card transactions”. )
Tavares disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose cash transactions
However, Korolev disclose the following limitation:
wherein the ratio of data types in the merchant data comprises a ratio of cash transactions and card transactions. (Korolev [0038], “ a ratio or proportion that corresponds to a quantity of customers that used or likely used a certain payment type (e.g., credit) in making purchases during a target time interval, … transaction is associated with a cash payment. … a characteristic (e.g., a size relative to other stores of the retailer) of one or more stores (e.g., a set or group of stores) that were not used in calculating the projection data for the retailer, which sometimes referred to as ratio estimation. [0130], “receipt data analyzer 102) that is associated with the first register system 202 and/or the second register system 212, which correct for payment types or methods used by customers at one or more of the first store 204, the second store 212, etc. of the retailer. In particular, based on payment codes (e.g., “CASH,” “CREDIT,” “DEBIT,” etc.) in the receipt data 122, 124, the projection calculator 100 calculates a ratio or proportion of customers that used or likely a certain payment type (EN: e.g., cash or credit) in making purchases during the first target time interval 432 and/or the second target time interval 436.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tavares, to include the feature, as taught by Korolev, in order to include a ratio of cash transaction and card transaction to the merchant data (Korolev [0130]).Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tavares and Korolev, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 6:
(Original) Tavares in view of Korolev disclose the method of claim 5,
Tavares further teach wherein the ratio of cash transactions and card transactions is calculated based on a subset of the merchant data comprising cash transactions and card transactions. (Tavares [0067] figs. 30-32 EN: disclose a ratio of different transaction include a card transactions”. [0099], “the aggregated POS data 240 may include merchant type flags, merchant identifiers, merchant outlet identifiers, transaction amounts, numbers of transactions, payment types used, transaction types ( e.g., sale, cash advance, return, etc.), transaction authorizations ( e.g., authorize, decline, etc.), timestamps, etc. As used herein, the market data 250 may include any types of data useful in generating market analyses and/or reports that can be extracted and/ or derived from the aggregated POS data 240. )
Tavares disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose cash transactions
However, Korolev disclose the following limitation:
wherein the ratio of cash transactions and card transactions is calculated based on a subset of the merchant data comprising cash transactions and card transactions. (Korolev [0038], “ a ratio or proportion that corresponds to a quantity of customers that used or likely used a certain payment type (e.g., credit) in making purchases during a target time interval, … transaction is associated with a cash payment. … a characteristic (e.g., a size relative to other stores of the retailer) of one or more stores (e.g., a set or group of stores) that were not used in calculating the projection data for the retailer, which sometimes referred to as ratio estimation. [0130], “receipt data analyzer 102) that is associated with the first register system 202 and/or the second register system 212, which correct for payment types or methods used by customers at one or more of the first store 204, the second store 212, etc. of the retailer. In particular, based on payment codes (e.g., “CASH,” “CREDIT,” “DEBIT,” etc.) in the receipt data 122, 124, the projection calculator 100 calculates a ratio or proportion of customers that used or likely a certain payment type (EN: e.g., cash or credit) in making purchases during the first target time interval 432 and/or the second target time interval 436.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tavares, to include the feature, as taught by Korolev, in order to include a ratio of cash transaction and card transaction to the merchant data (Korolev [0130]). Also, it will improve the technical field of market research and analytics (Korolev [0020]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tavares and Korolev, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bahrami, Mohsen, et al. "Predicting merchant future performance using privacy-safe network-based features." Scientific Reports 13.1 (2023): 10073.
Jain US 2025/0348908: Method and system for creating an advertisement based on user input.
Thakur et al. US 2025/0111422: Systems and methods for merchant personalization and recommendation.
Rajamani et al. US 2024/0386467: Dynamically adjusting digital component campaign values for disengaged consumers.
Bishnoi et al. US 2022/0245658: Audience recommendation using node similarity in combined contextual graph embeddings.
Pandey et al. US 2022/0092620: Method, apparatus, and computer program product for merchant classification.
Boucher CA 3049808: System and method for managing relationships between suppliers, merchants, and customers.
Bhagchandani et al. US 2007/0143172: System and method for predicting card member spending using collaborative filtering.
Herman et al. US 2006/0143072: Method and apparatus for collaborative filtering of card member transactions.
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
Prosecution Insights