DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Action is in response to App. 19/072,271 filed 03/06/2025. The present application is a continuation of 18/405,279 dated 01/05/2024, 17/563,874 dated 12/28/2021, and 16/520,556 dated 07/24/2019. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.12333577 (hereafter Pat. 577), claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.11900424 (hereafter Pat. 424), and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11210712 (hereafter Pat. 712). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in subject matter such that the present claims are anticipated by the claims of the parent applications as shown below:
As per claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving customer data for each of a plurality of customers, the customer data stored in a memory storage device and including customer interaction data;
(See Pat. 577 claim 1, “receiving customer data corresponding to a first customer of a plurality of customer, the customer data stored in a memory storage device and including a plurality of historic customer interaction points;”
See Pat. 424 claim 1, “receiving customer data corresponding to a first customer of a plurality of customer, the customer data stored in a memory storage device and including a plurality of historic customer interaction points;”
See Pat. 712 claim 1, “receiving user data corresponding to a first user of a plurality of users, the user data stored in a memory storage device and including a plurality of historic interaction points; “)
determining, using a propensity score model applied to the customer data, one or more propensity scores that a first customer likely meets one or more objectives set in the propensity score model;
(See Pat. 577 claim 1, “assigning a policy from a plurality of policies to the first customer based on scoring each of the plurality of objectives from the plurality of customer propensities, the policy based on a mapping between the customer data and one or more actions of a plurality of actions associated with the policy;”
See Pat. 424 claim 1, “assigning a policy from a plurality of policies to the first customer based on scoring each of the plurality of objectives from the plurality of customer propensities, the policy based on a mapping between the customer data and one or more actions of a plurality of actions associated with the policy;”
See Pat. 712 claim 1, “scoring each of the plurality of objectives based on the plurality of probabilities;”)
assigning, based on the one or more propensity scores, the first customer to a first group of customers associated with a first goal associated with one or more first objectives; and
(See Pat. 577 claim 1, “assigning a policy from a plurality of policies to the first customer based on scoring each of the plurality of objectives from the plurality of customer propensities, the policy based on a mapping between the customer data and one or more actions of a plurality of actions associated with the policy;”
See Pat. 424 claim 1, “assigning a policy from a plurality of policies to the first customer based on scoring each of the plurality of objectives from the plurality of customer propensities, the policy based on a mapping between the customer data and one or more actions of a plurality of actions associated with the policy;”
See Pat. 712 claim 1, “assigning a policy from a plurality of policies to the first user based on the scoring, the policy based on a mapping between the user data and one or more actions of a plurality of actions associated with the policy;”)
for the first group, using a multi-armed bandit model to provide at least one next best action for the first customer wherein the next best action is selected from one or more actions associated with the first goal.
(See Pat. 577 claim 1, “outputting to the first customer using the intent propensity model a recommended next action from the plurality of actions associated with the assigned policy;” See also Pat. 577 claim 9, “one or more processors implementing a variant hybrid contextual multi-armed bandit model configured to:”
See Pat. 424 claim 1, “outputting to the first customer a recommended next action from the plurality of actions associated with the assigned policy;” and “determining, through use of a multi-armed bandit model, a plurality of customer propensities that the first customer will meet each of a plurality of objectives based on the goal;”
See Pat. 712 claim 1, “outputting to the first user a recommended next action from the plurality of actions associated with the assigned policy;” and “A computer-implemented method using a variant hybrid contextual multi-armed bandit model, the method comprising:”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of receiving customer information, determining propensity scores using a model, assigning groups based on scores, and using multi-armed bandit model.
The limitation of receiving customer information, determining propensity scores using a model, assigning groups based on scores, and using multi-armed bandit model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” and “computer-implemented” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “computer-implemented” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading over information in a database. Similarly, the limitations of “determining” and “assigning”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. But for the “processor” and “computer-implemented” language, “determining” and “assigning” in the context of the claim encompasses the person mentally calculating scores using particular models and formulas and mentally assigning users to groups based on a score falling in a score range. Similarly, but for the “processor” and “computer-implemented” language, “using a multi-armed bandit model” in the context of the claim encompasses the person mentally applying a model/thought process to determine an action. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing repetitive calculations using models, and grouping information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on the type and relationship of information to abstract calculations(such as claims 2-4, 6, 8), and additional abstract steps (such as claims 5 and 7). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information and relationship between the information. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention includes limitations similar to parent applications 18/405,279, 17/563,874, and 16/520,556 including the concept of calculating the propensity score based on objectives and determining policy based actions. Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes the following reference(s):
He et al. (US 20170103413 A1), which talks about generating recommendations using multi-armed bandit models.
Agarwal et al. (US 20090043597 A1), which talks about utilizing cluster/group based multi-armed bandit model for object matching.
Although these reference(s) further teach/suggest the concept of calculating/determining the propensity score based on objectives and determining policy based actions as currently claimed. As such, the Examiner has determined the claimed invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights