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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶[0046] .
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 1-15 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 16-18 are directed to an apparatus (machine), and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory (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 claims 16 and 19 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. A method for data processing, comprising:
receiving an indication of a creation of a communication process flow, the communication process flow comprising a plurality of actions that control electronic communications between an entity and a plurality of users;
receiving one or more user inputs that indicates at least two first action variations of a first action of the plurality of actions and at least two second action variations of a second action of the plurality of actions;
generating, based at least in part on receiving the indication of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations, the communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations; and
executing, for the plurality of users, the communication process flow comprising the plurality of paths.
The Applicant's Specification titled " COMMUNICATION PROCESS FLOW PATH VARIATIONS" emphasizes the need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user" (Spec. figure 10).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user. 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).
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 17) wherein a respective path for each action variation combination comprises a respective combination of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 18 and 20) generating the plurality of paths of using each possible combination of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations based at least in part on receiving the one or more user inputs.
claims 4 monitoring the communication process flow based at least in part on executing the communication process flow for the plurality of users; and
obtaining a plurality of performance metrics for the plurality of paths of the communication process flow, a respective performance metric for a respective path of the plurality of paths being associated with a respective combination of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations of the plurality of combinations, wherein the plurality of performance metrics are obtained based at least in part on monitoring the communication process flow.
claims 5 receiving a second user input that indicates a duration of time for monitoring the communication process flow, wherein the communication process flow is monitored for the duration of time based at least in part on receiving the second user input.
claims 6 routing the plurality of users via one or more paths of the plurality of paths of the communication process flow based at least in part on a respective performance metric of the one or more paths, the one or more paths being associated with one or more respective combinations of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations.
claim 7 routing the plurality of users via the one or more paths based at least in part on the respective performance metric of the one or more paths satisfying a performance metric threshold.
claim 8 wherein the plurality of performance metrics indicate user engagement metrics.
claim 9 receiving one or more second user inputs that indicate at least two third action variations of a third action of the plurality of actions, the at least two third action variations corresponding to two or more goals for the plurality of paths of the communication process flow, the two or more goals being based at least in part on data stored within a data platform that is separate from the communication process flow.
claim 10 routing the plurality of users via one or more paths of the plurality of paths of the communication process flow based at least in part on a result of the one or more paths satisfying at least one goal of the two or more goals, the one or more paths being associated with one or more respective combinations of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations.
claim 11 wherein the plurality of users are routed via the one or more paths of the plurality of paths based at least in part on the at least one goal of the two or more goals being satisfied a threshold quantity of times.
claim 12 generating, via a machine learning model, at least one first action variation of the first action of the plurality of actions in addition to the at least two first action variations and at least one second action variation of the second action of the plurality of actions in addition to the at least two second action variations.
claim 13 wherein the at least one first action variation and the at least one second action variation are generated based at least in part on receiving the one or more user inputs.
claim 14 wherein the first action of the plurality of actions is an email action and the second action of the plurality of actions is a wait duration action.
claim 15 displaying, via a first user interface, a variation creation selection component, wherein the one or more user inputs are received via the variation creation selection component.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 16 and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 16, and 19 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. Electronic communication
Claim 16. An apparatus, memory, processor, and electronic communication
Claim 19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium processor, and electronic communication
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 16, and 19 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium processor An apparatus, memory, processor, and electronic communication 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 claims 16 and 19) 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 generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user 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 generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user. 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 2-15, 17-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 16, and 19 respectively, for example, claims 12 and 15 a user interface and a machine learning but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 16, and 20 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, 16, and 19 include A non-transitory computer-readable medium processor An apparatus, memory, processor, and electronic communication. 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 generating a communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action and second action variations based on different received data from a user.
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.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections 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 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 1-6, 8-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popelka et al. US 2023/0031718 (hereinafter Popelka).
Regarding Claim 1:
A method for data processing, comprising:
receiving an indication of a creation of a communication process flow, the communication process flow comprising a plurality of actions that control electronic communications between an entity and a plurality of users; (Popelka [0029], “UI 220 in order to configured the communication process flow …. communication process flow 225 may be one of a plurality of communication process flows that may be defined for various different subsets of the plurality of users associated with a particular tenant”. [0035-0036], “actions 305 through 340 … the action .. a conditional entry source into the process flow … configured to create the rule corresponding to the action … each of these parameters may correspond to actions performable by a user””. [0038], “parameters may be configured to create the rule corresponding to the action 305”. Also, see figure 3)
receiving one or more user inputs that indicates at least two first action variations of a first action of the plurality of actions (EN: with regard to first action, claim 14, “first action … is an email action”. Popelka [0036-0040], 310 “New products email communication transmission action (e.g., send email). Thus, a user that satisfied the rule associated with action 305 (e.g., based on web behavior data) may receive an email based on action 310. The email may be customizable using the user interface. After the email is transmitted, the instructions corresponding to action 315 may be executed for the users. Also, see figure 3, plurality of first action “320-340”.) and at least two second action variations of a second action of the plurality of actions; (EN: with regard to second action, claim 14, “second action … is a waiting time”. Popelka scheduling actions, such as wait for one week, conditional actions, such as different routes based on attribute data, and other types of action”. Figure 3 plurality of second action “325-335”.)
generating, based at least in part on receiving the indication of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations, the communication process flow comprising a plurality of paths for a plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations; and executing, for the plurality of users, the communication process flow comprising the plurality of paths. (Popelka [0027], [0031], [0038-0042], “Action 315 may correspond to a decision split action, where users are routed ( e.g., next actions are executed) into various paths of the communication process flow 300 based on the web behavior data. At UI 350, the rule for the web behavior split may be configured. Each path may be defined based on one or more expression. For example, the "No Purchase Path" is defined by expression that specifies that a user did not purchase a product (e.g., Contacts. Purchase equals None) but that the user did browse an Outdoor Furniture category on the tenant platform/website ( e.g., Website.RecentBrowsing equals Website.Category. Outdoor Furniture). Additionally, the two aforementioned expressions are combined using an AND operator. Thus, a user that satisfies the two expressions may be routed into the No Purchase path, where the actions 320 and 325 may be executed for those users”.)
Regarding Claim 2:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach wherein a respective path for each action variation combination comprises a respective combination of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations. (Popelka [0038], “a user that satisfies the two expressions”. [0047-0050], “of a Boolean expression that combines various web behavior parameters using an operator. Thus, if the web behavior associated with the first user satisfies the rule, then the user is routed to a next action (e.g., a communication action) in the communication process flow. In some cases, the first user may not satisfy the rule until performing an action on the platform, after which the user is routed to the next action. [0048] At 440, the server 410 may route the first user to a next action of the set of actions in the communication process flow”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach wherein generating the communication process flow comprises: generating the plurality of paths of using each possible combination of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations based at least in part on receiving the one or more user inputs. (Popelka [0027], [0031], [0038-0042], “Action 315 may correspond to a decision split action, where users are routed ( e.g., next actions are executed) into various paths of the communication process flow 300 based on the web behavior data. At UI 350, the rule for the web behavior split may be configured. Each path may be defined based on one or more expression. For example, the "No Purchase Path" is defined by expression that specifies that a user did not purchase a product (e.g., Contacts. Purchase equals None) but that the user did browse an Outdoor Furniture category on the tenant platform/website ( e.g., Website.RecentBrowsing equals Website.Category. Outdoor Furniture). Additionally, the two aforementioned expressions are combined using an AND operator. Thus, a user that satisfies the two expressions may be routed into the No Purchase path, where the actions 320 and 325 may be executed for those users”.)
Regarding Claim 4:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
monitoring the communication process flow based at least in part on executing the communication process flow for the plurality of users; and obtaining a plurality of performance metrics for the plurality of paths of the communication process flow, a respective performance metric for a respective path of the plurality of paths being associated with a respective combination of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations of the plurality of combinations, wherein the plurality of performance metrics are obtained based at least in part on monitoring the communication process flow. (Popelka [0027-0028], the prior communication, then the user is routed along the first path that the specifies that the user is to receive a first set of communications. If the user did not interact with or deleted the communication, then the user may be routed along the second path that specifies that the user is to receive a second set of communications. The communication platform 215 may support a communication interface 230 that transmits electronic communications 245 to users, and the users may access the electronic communications 245 via user devices 240. As described herein, the electronic communications 245 may be in the form of emails, text messages, push notifications, web advertisements, and the like. As such, the communication interface 230 may represent an email server, a text message server, advertising server, etc. In some cases, the communication interface 230 may monitor user interaction with the transmitted electronic communications 245. Such interaction may include opens, clicks, deletes, ignores, unsubscribes, etc. The communication platform 215 may generate metrics based on interaction, update user data based on interaction, and the like”. [0054], “the rule satisfaction component 535”)
Regarding Claim 5:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 4,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
receiving a second user input that indicates a duration of time for monitoring the communication process flow, wherein the communication process flow is monitored for the duration of time based at least in part on receiving the second user input. (Popelka scheduling actions, such as wait for one week, conditional actions, such as different routes based on attribute data, and other types of action”. Figure 3 plurality of second action “325-335”.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 4,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
routing the plurality of users via one or more paths of the plurality of paths of the communication process flow based at least in part on a respective performance metric of the one or more paths, the one or more paths being associated with one or more respective combinations of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations. (Popelka [0049-0055], “based at least in part on the web behavior data, a content item of a plurality of content items associated with a second action of the set of actions … The rule satisfaction component 535 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for detecting that a first user of the set of users satisfies a rule defined by the first action based at least in part on monitoring of the web behavior data. The communication process flow routing component 540 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for routing the first user to a next action of the set of actions in the communication process flow based at least in part on detecting that the first user satisfies the rule”.)
Regarding Claim 8:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 4,
Popelka further teach wherein the plurality of performance metrics indicate user engagement metrics. (Popelka figure 3 [0028], “The communication platform 215 may generate metrics based on interaction (EN: engagement), update user data based on interaction, and the like”.)
Regarding Claim 9:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
receiving one or more second user inputs that indicate at least two third action variations of a third action of the plurality of actions, the at least two third action variations corresponding to two or more goals for the plurality of paths of the communication process flow, the two or more goals being based at least in part on data stored within a data platform that is separate from the communication process flow. (EN: goal here in view of applicant specification could be “a condition of a user purchasing a defined”. Popelka figure 3 [0057], “flow routing component 640 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for routing a second user to a third action instead of the second action based at least in part on the web behavior data associated with the second user” . also, see [0081], [0101])
Regarding Claim 10:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 9,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
routing the plurality of users via one or more paths of the plurality of paths of the communication process flow based at least in part on a result of the one or more paths satisfying at least one goal of the two or more goals, the one or more paths being associated with one or more respective combinations of the plurality of combinations of the at least two first action variations and the at least two second action variations. (Popelka [995-0101], “transmitted to a particular user of the set of users is determined based at least in part on a set of actions defined by the communication process flow, monitoring web behavior data associated with the set of users in accordance with a first action of the set of actions, wherein the web behavior data is separate from data associated with interaction by the set of users with the electronic communications of the communication process flow, detecting that a first user of the set of users satisfies a rule defined by the first action based at least in part on monitoring of the web behavior data, and routing the first user to a next action of the set of actions in the communication process flow based at least in part on detecting that the first user satisfies the rule ... to a third action”. Also, see figure 3)
Regarding Claim 13:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 12,
Popelka further teach wherein the at least one first action variation and the at least one second action variation are generated based at least in part on receiving the one or more user inputs. (Popelka [0035-0036], “a UI (e.g., UI 220 ofFIG. 2) by an administrator of a tenant. The administrator may organize various actions (e.g., actions 305 through 340), define various parameters and customizations for each action, etc”.)
Regarding Claim 14:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach wherein the first action of the plurality of actions is an email action (Popelka [0036-0040], 310 “New products email communication transmission action (e.g., send email). Thus, a user that satisfied the rule associated with action 305 (e.g., based on web behavior data) may receive an email based on action 310. The email may be customizable using the user interface. After the email is transmitted, the instructions corresponding to action 315 may be executed for the users. Also, see figure 3, plurality of first action “320-340”.) and the second action of the plurality of actions is a wait duration action. (Popelka scheduling actions, such as wait for one week, conditional actions, such as different routes based on attribute data, and other types of action”. Figure 3 plurality of second action “325-335”.)
Regarding Claim 15:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1,
Popelka further teach further comprising:
displaying, via a first user interface, a variation creation selection component, wherein the one or more user inputs are received via the variation creation selection component. (Popelka [0026-0031], “an administrative user, such as a marketing manager, may access a user interface (UI) of the communication platform 215 in order to configure a customized workflow ( e.g., communication process flow 225) for a plurality of users associated with the tenant, such as subscribers, customers, prospective customers, application users, etc., which may be examples of contacts 100 of FIG. 1. … user interface components onto a canvas, selection of parameters for the components, etc. The components may correspond to communication actions, such as send email, scheduling actions, such as wait for one week, conditional actions, such as different routes based on attribute data, and other types of actions. The configured communication process flow 225 may be one of a plurality of communication process flows that may be defined for various different subsets of the plurality of users associated with a particular tenant”.)
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
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 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popelka et al. US 2023/0031718 (hereinafter Popelka) in view of Singhai et al. US 2021/0406935 (hereinafter Singhai).
Regarding Claim 7:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 6 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Singhai, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein routing the plurality of users via the one or more paths comprises: routing the plurality of users via the one or more paths based at least in part on the respective performance metric of the one or more paths satisfying a performance metric threshold. (Singhai [0051] & [0077], “a threshold value”. [0068], In some cases, upon identifying and presenting a journey insight in the form of an audience segment(s) associated with a journey path(s), a user (e.g., marketer) can select or implement an intervention based on the journey insight. In this regard, a marketer may view the journey insight and, based on the insight, modify the journey (e.g., a journey path, a response, a condition, etc.) in an effort to better obtain a goal (e.g., a marketing goal). For example, journey developer 204 may be used to manipulate or modify the journey”. [0070], based on analysis of a journey insight, … an intervention suggestion may be automatically implemented”. EN: the suggestion includes a journey path that satisfies the marketing goal for an audience segment.)
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 Popelka, to include the feature as taught by Singhai, in order to route the plurality of users the path(s) based at least in part on the respective performance metric of the one or more paths satisfying a performance metric threshold (EN: condition) (Singhai [0051] & [0077]). 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 Popelka and Singhai, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 11:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 10 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Singhai, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of users are routed via the one or more paths of the plurality of paths based at least in part on the at least one goal of the two or more goals being satisfied a threshold quantity of times. (Singhai [0014], “performance of the various journey paths in a journey. For example, a number or percent of audience members that traverse the various journey paths may be monitored and recorded. Such a performance indicator may also be presented in association with the journey workflow for easy visualization by a user. In some embodiments, to obtain or view journey insights associated with a particular journey workflow, a user may select a performance indicator associated with the workflow (e.g., percent of audience members that traverse the corresponding journey path; [0015], As described herein, journey insights can be provided in the form of audience segment identification. In this regard, an identification of audience segments that proceed through a journey path can be provided to a user. To identify audience segments associated with a journey path, machine learning can be used to automatically learn patterns that distinguish audience segments across journey paths. By performing machine learning model interpretation on such a machine learned model, patterns indicating audience segments that describe audience members in journey paths can be extracted and provided to a user. … A goal can be used to guide the segmentation. For instance, when a marketer selects a particular path of a journey, the goal can include whether an audience member(s) entered the selected journey path. As another example, if a marketer wants to identify audience segments that generate high revenue, a goal may be whether an audience member(s) has spent more than a particular amount of money on a particular website visit. Utilizing a goal and goal-driven segmentation leads to audience segments that optimize for the goal; [0040], To generate a journey, a user, such as a marketer, may select or input events, controls, and/or responses. The events, controls, and/or responses may be presented via a graphical user interface in a workflow diagram to illustrate one or more workflow paths. Generally, the journey manager 202 enables a user (e.g., a marketer) to use events, controls (e.g., end, condition, timer), and/or responses (e.g., email, SMS) to design workflows for personalized engagements with audience members (e.g., customers). [0079], In this case, the user added condition 408 which includes different journey paths for different types of audience members. For example, the condition 408 separates electronic lovers to journey path 410, fashion aficionados to journey path 412, and gym equipment to journey path 414. A corresponding response is included for each of the journey paths. For example, response 416 is provided for audience members that are identified as electronic lovers, response 418 is provided for audience members that are identified as fashion aficionados, and response 420 is provided for audience members that are identified as associated with gym equipment; Paragraph 0083, In addition to viewing the journey insights, an intervention suggestion(s) may be provided. As shown in FIG. 5, an “add new path” intervention suggestion 504 is presented to enable a user to modify the journey to target audience members more effectively. .. other interventions may be identified via methods described herein. For example, content to communicate, a channel for communicating, a time to communicate, and/or the like, may be identified and provided as an intervention suggestion for improving the propensity for interacting with different marketing actions; EN: the reference evaluates performance of multiple path variations such as a path using different time).
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 Popelka, to include the feature as taught by Singhai, in order to route the plurality of users the path(s) based at least in goal(s) metric of the one or more paths satisfying a performance metric threshold (EN: condition) (Singhai [0014] & [0077]). 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 Popelka and Singhai, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 12:
Popelka disclose the method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Singhai, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising:
generating, via a machine learning model, at least one first action variation of the first action of the plurality of actions in addition to the at least two first action variations and at least one second action variation of the second action of the plurality of actions in addition to the at least two second action variations. (Singhai [0015], machine learning can be used to automatically learn patterns that distinguish audience segments across journey paths. … a user may utilize such audience segments to target the audience members in a different manner (e.g., to improve journey performance). Advantageously, such a method enables goal-driven audience segmentation. … if a marketer wants to identify audience segments that generate high revenue, a goal may be whether an audience member(s) has spent more than a particular amount of money on a particular website visit. Utilizing a goal and goal-driven segmentation leads to audience segments that optimize for the goal; Paragraph 0068, In some cases, upon identifying and presenting a journey insight in the form of an audience segment(s) associated with a journey path(s), a user (e.g., marketer) can select or implement an intervention based on the journey insight. In this regard, a marketer may view the journey insight and, based on the insight, modify the journey (e.g., a journey path, a response, a condition, etc.) in an effort to better obtain a goal (e.g., a marketing goal). For example, journey developer 204 may be used to manipulate or modify the journey)
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 Popelka, to include the feature as taught by Singhai, in order to route the plurality of users the path of multiple actions via a machine learning (Singhai [0015] & [0077]). 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 Popelka and Singhai, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hsiao et al. US 2021/0110328: Techniques for configuring workflow event processing and identifier federation.
Swvigardoss CA 3170623: Improved localization procedures and prioritization for applications.
Marlod WO 2025/128540: Method and system for artificial intelligence based enhancement of sale processes.
Eldan et al. US 12169802: Digital processing systems and method for managing workflows.
Popelka et al. US 2023/0088287: Techniques for cross platform communication process flow event posting.
Barbitta WO 2021/087318: Extensible framework for constructing autonomous workflows.
Taye, Mohammad Mustafa. "Understanding of machine learning with deep learning: architectures, workflow, applications and future directions." Computers 12.5 (2023): 91.
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