DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are considered in this Office action.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed at limitations for retrieving data of at least one event from a customer timeline (Receiving Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk); obtaining information from the customer timeline (Receiving Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk); generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline (Analyzing the Collected Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk); identifying at least one event of interest from the one or more patterns (Analyzing the Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk); identifying one or more issues related to the event of interest (Analyzing the Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk); building the journey using the retrieved data to determine an impact on other customers based on the one or more identified issues (Analyzing the Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/ Mitigating Risk); and analyzing the journey to determine whether one of either or both of the event or the identified issue happened differently than what was initially anticipated when contrasted with other previously analyzed journeys (Analyzing and potentially Transmitting the Information, an observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, Managing/Mitigating Risk), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of managing customer risk, but for the recitation of generic computer components as in Claims 4 and 5 where there is use of a medium, graphical user interface, and computer program. That is, other than reciting general use of a computer, (which in Claims 4 and 5 are a computer-readable storage medium, user interface, and a computer program), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Risk, a Fundamental Economic Practice. For example, generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline encompasses a supervisor or manager looking at a customer timeline and analyzing it for patterns, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Customer Risk, a Fundamental Economic Practice, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer, computer-readable storage medium, user interface, computer program, and other additional elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0046] In an aspect, the present systems and methods can be operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that can be suitable for use with the systems and methods comprise, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, laptop devices, cloud services, mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, and the like)”
Which shows any type of generic computer can be used, such as any handheld device, telephone, computer, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the external systems, mobile client, etc., nor the receiving and transmission steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium, user interface, and program which are generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, as reasoned above, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberman (U.S. Publication No. 2021/003,5152) in view of Shah (U.S. Publication No. 2022/033,5439).
Regarding Claim 1, Silberman teaches a method of building a journey for journey mining, the method comprising:
retrieving data of at least one event from a customer timeline ([0028-29] customer timelines and events are received);
obtaining information from the customer timeline ([0036] and [0028-29] a customer timeline is received);
generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline ([0036] patterns are determined for correlation);
identifying at least one event of interest from the one or more patterns ([0036-37] particular events and timelines are ranked using the CVV which is based on the pattern);
building the journey using the retrieved data to determine an impact on other customers based on the one or more identified issues ([0047] identifying impacts and build timelines and marketing according to the identified risks); and
analyzing the journey to determine whether one of either or both of the event or the identified issue happened differently than what was initially anticipated when contrasted with other previously analyzed journeys ([0029] the system analyzes the available data with the customers journey to determine if there are variances using learning).
Although Silberman teaches individuals having seasonal issues, and determination of problems, it does not explicitly state and issue to an event.
Shah teaches identifying one or more issues related to the event of interest ([0018] event responses to issues are determined/identified).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the determination of issues of Silberman with the identification of issues of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Regarding Claim 2, Silberman teaches further comprising determining a risk or an opportunity based on the journey ([0047] determined opportunity and loss based on the journey and information).
Regarding Claim 3, Although Silberman teaches a risk and opportunity of a journey and timeline as taught in Claims 1 and 2 above, it does not explicitly teach an escalation being used on either.
Shah teaches escalation management analysis on the risk or the opportunity as in [0034-35].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the risk and opportunities of issues of Silberman with the identification of risks and escalation management of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Regarding Claim 4, Silberman teaches further comprising receiving the data from a computer-readable storage medium ([0128] computer readable medium is used in the process).
Regarding Claim 5, Silberman teaches wherein building the journey includes the interaction of a user with a graphical user interface in communication with a computer program ([0120] and [0124] a user and communication interface and display device in communication with computer and programs).
Regarding Claim 6, Silberman teaches further comprising a user adding a new event to the customer timeline ([0086] new events are added to new event timelines).
Regarding Claim 7, Although Silberman teaches determination of journeys and timelines, and analyzing of timelines and journeys as in Claim 1 above, it does not explicitly teach analyzing or mining the journey or pattern.
Shah teaches analyzing patterns as in [0026] for events/journeys and determination of escalation events as in [0034-35].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the risk and opportunities of issues of Silberman with the identification of risks and escalation management of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, it is old and well-known to mine event data from timelines, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220335439 A1
Shah; Vishal et al.
EVENT PREDICTION USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
US 20210035152 A1
Silberman; Gabriel M. et al.
PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MARKETING CAMPAIGN PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT
US 20200126126 A1
Briancon; Alain Charles et al.
CUSTOMER JOURNEY MANAGEMENT ENGINE
US 20180129390 A1
Wu; Jingtao et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EVENT DATA VISUALIZATION
US 20200265483 A1
CANALETTI P et al.
System for providing dialog and communications monitoring using artificial intelligence and analytics-based monitoring and machine learning, comprises data stores to store and manage data, and analytics system has data access interface
US 20180189255 A1
HANCE T et al.
Method for managing image annotations in e.g. text, by network-based file sharing computer system, involves causing client device to display tag at portion of image based on relative coordinates of image comment and dimensions of image
US 20220366332 A1
Duessel; Patrick
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RISK-ADAPTIVE SECURITY INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
US 20220044283 A1
Briancon; Alain Charles et al.
CUSTOMER JOURNEY MANAGEMENT ENGINE
US 20210165653 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20200265483 A1
TORTORIELLO; Felice et al.
DIALOGUE MONITORING AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED ANALYTICS
US 20200265443 A1
Shah; Vishal et al.
EVENT PREDICTION USING ARTIFICAL INTELLEGENCE
US 20200117448 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20190019213 A1
Silberman; Gabriel M. et al.
PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MARKETING CAMPAIGN PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT
US 20180365628 A1
Bhaskaran; Sujith Kattathara
AGILE TEAMS FREELANCE-SOURCING: ONLINE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING SUCCESS POTENTIAL OF FREELANCE PROJECTS
US 20180189255 A1
Kofman; Igor et al.
IMAGE ANNOTATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE CONTENT ITEMS
US 20170161063 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20160189082 A1
Garrish; John et al.
USER INTERFACE AND UNDERLYING DATA ANALYTICS FOR CUSTOMER SUCCESS MANAGEMENT
US 20150381801 A1
Rajakumar; Anthony et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR DISAMBIGUATING CALL DATA TO DETERMINE FRAUD
US 20140012633 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET TO COMPILE MARKETING COMPANY LISTS
US 20130275331 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET IN PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS
US 20130132162 A1
Banerjee; Arindam et al.
Method and system for enabling collaboration in an enterprise
US 20120136763 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET IN PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS
US 20080228541 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
Using commercial share of wallet in private equity investments
US 20080004970 A1
Ehrensberger; Michael J. et al.
Method for customized objective predetermined organized selling
US 20030110070 A1
De Goeij, Marc Alexander
Method, framework and system for organizing, aligning and managing organizations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 4/4/2026