DETAILED 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 . Claims 1-15 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 06/29/2026, amended claims. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 102/103 Rejections were overcome in the Non-Final Office action dated 04/01/2026
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that claims are not directed to an abstract idea as claims are not mental processes nor are they certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards the mental processes of input comprising historical sales, weather and location data, applying weights, data being obtained by capturing a perception of competitor price, determining weights, using a regression model, estimate price elasticity and error, estimating sales units, estimating expected revenue, and determining an ideal price all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper) and further directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards pricing items in marketing (See Specification, [03]).
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards addressing technical problems and provide technical solutions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant identifies alleged technical improvements. However the first two problems concern the matter of pricing information and customer behavior and analyzed in order to determine pricing, rather a problem arising from the computer technology itself. Improving accuracy and sophistication of a pricing model does not constitute an improvement to the technology nor technological field. Similarly, Applicant characterizes heterogenous data sources as a technical problem. However, the claims do not recite any improvements to the data processing technology but merely utilizes the hardware processor as a tool to generate the pricing.
Applicant contends that similar to Example 39 that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not analogous to the cited example. The example requires applying transformation to digital images, creating training sets of images, and multiple training steps, whereas the present limitations merely require the additional elements of processor, hardware, etc. receiving… via hardware processor which are each addressed in the 101 Rejection below.
Applicant contends at Step 2A-P2 that the claims recite an improvement to the technology and reduces computational iterations and memory consumption. Applicant further points to the Specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement to the technology but merely mental process of performing weighting and is merely improving upon the abstract idea itself (i.e. a more efficient mathematical methodology) and not the technology nor technological field as a whole.
Applicant contends an improvement to the capability of a feedback mechanism asserting that adapts to temporal behavior. Applicant further points to the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely recites applying weights through a feedback mechanism. The feedback mechanism itself is recited at a high level of generality and is merely performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends at Step 2B, that claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and asserts the claims provide a non-conventional framework involving dynamic weighting…. Applicant further points to the independent claims and the Specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements are analyzed individually as well as in combination and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant further contends that the claims provide technical advancements in method for competitive pricing…. distributed computing environments, delayed perception, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement to the technology but merely an improvement to the abstract idea of competitive pricing considering various factors and not the technology nor technological field as a whole. The ability to practice the method in a distributed computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of delayed perception, use of dynamic weights, and identification of ideal weights are merely abstract elements which can be performed mentally and further are certain methods of organizing human activity.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the left-over competitor price effect is captured by applying time specific dynamic weights through a feedback mechanism … (Claims 1, 6, and 11)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 recite the left-over competitor price effect is captured by applying time specific dynamic weights through a feedback mechanism. The specification merely reiterates the functional language of the claimed mechanism and thus fails to clearly describe how the configurations and/or functions are carried out (see at least specification [16]). Therefore, Applicant’s disclosure fails to comply with the written description requirement because it does not describe the implementation of the necessary algorithms or steps for performing the “applying time specific dynamic weights” (See (MPEP 2161.01(I)).
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 inherit the deficiency of the parent and are rejected similarly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 recites the left-over competitor price effect is captured by applying time specific dynamic weights through a feedback mechanism which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear and sufficient linking of any of the generic placeholders to any particular structure, the Specification in at least [16] the functional language and/or configurations of the claimed mechanism and thus fails to clearly describe how the configurations and/or functions are carried out but it is not clear from the disclosure whether the generic placeholders are computer hardware components, software, or some combination. Therefore, the claim(s) is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because Applicant’s disclosure fails to clearly link the recommender “engine” to a particular structure for performing the claimed function(s). For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the feedback mechanism as software, hardware, or a combination thereof.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 inherit the deficiency of the parent and are rejected similarly.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the 112(b)/112(f) issues, Examiner suggests Applicant follow the USPTO policy on http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials, “112(f): Identifying Limitations That Invoke 112(f) Power Point,” posted August 2, 2013, slide 8, and recite that the generic placeholders, i.e. engine(s)”, “module(s)”, etc. are computer instructions stored in memory and executed by a processor to perform the claimed functions. This will overcome the 112(b) and 112(f) issues.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding independent claim(s), (additional elements bolded)
A processor implemented method comprising/A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to:/ One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause:
receiving for a retailer item, via one or more hardware processors, (i) a retailer input comprising a plurality of historical sales units of the retailer item corresponding to a plurality of historical retailer prices of the retailer item and a plurality of miscellaneous data associated with a retailer,
wherein the plurality of miscellaneous data comprises weather data and location data corresponding to a plurality of time periods, and (ii) a plurality of historical competitor prices associated with a set of competitors for the plurality of time periods;
applying, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of dynamic weights on the plurality of historical competitor prices to obtain a plurality of derived competitor prices corresponding to a plurality of scenarios,
wherein the plurality of dynamic weights simulates different scenarios in which each scenario represents customer remembrance patterns which is unique, wherein a value of the plurality of dynamic weights is assigned to each historical recent time period and it varies between 0 and 1 with a condition that sum of weights assigned to all the time periods is equal to 1 and multiplication of dynamic weight with corresponding price of a week enables to simulate different price perception in customer mindset,
wherein each derived competitor price of the plurality of derived competitor prices is obtained by capturing a perception of competitor price for the retailer item considering a left-over competitor price effect and a delayed response of customers on the plurality of historical competitor prices;
wherein the left-over competitor price effect is captured by applying time specific dynamic weights through a feedback mechanism and an influence of historical competitor prices creates the left-over competitor price effect about the competitor and a delay perception defined as a perception about the competitor price of the item with cumulative effect of past competitor prices of the item with an item specific delayed perception is captured by applying the set of dynamic weights, and a starting value of the dynamic weights for each week is assigned for identification of an ideal weight in a shorter span of time with a lesser memory usage of a computer;
determining from the plurality of dynamic weights, via the one or more hardware processors, an ideal dynamic weight associated with an optimal derived competitor price for each competitor amongst the set of competitors using a regression model,
wherein the regression model estimates a competitor price elasticity and an associated competitor price elasticity error for each competitor from the plurality of derived competitor prices, and
wherein the ideal dynamic weight associates with a minimum competitor price elasticity error;
estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, sales units of the retailer item associated with the retailer using a retailer price within a price range specified by the retailer, the optimal derived competitor price for each competitor, and the competitor price elasticity associated with the ideal dynamic weight in a customized model;
wherein the customized model is developed depending on a nature of specialty of the retailer and the sales units for different retailer price within the price range specified by the retailer with improved accuracy is estimated using the customized model;
estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, an expected revenue and an expected margin associated with the retailer price within the price range specified by the retailer and the optimal derived competitor price for each competitor using the sales units of the retailer item;
estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, a yield of the retailer item associated with the retailer from the sales units of the retailer item along with the expected revenue and the expected margin associated with the retailer price within the price range specified by the retailer and the optimal derived competitor price for each competitor to obtain a plurality of yields associated with the set of competitors; and
determining, via the one or more hardware processors, an ideal price of the retailer item for the retailer, wherein the ideal price of the retailer item within the price range specified by the retailer corresponds to an optimum yield amongst the plurality of yields
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards input comprising historical sales, weather and location data, applying weights, data being obtained by capturing a perception of competitor price, determining weights, using a regression model, estimate price elasticity and error, estimating sales units, estimating expected revenue, and determining an ideal price all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards pricing items in marketing (See Specification, [03]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, and 11-15, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights