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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9 April 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical/typographical errors. The claim recites that “the forecast list comprises is expected to increase…” For examination purposes this limitation is interpreted as “the forecast lift comprises an expected increase” or “the forecast lift is an expected increase”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Not all of the symbols and variables in the scalable importance function are defined in the claim. It is unclear what en,a,l and H stand for. Clarification and correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites the same limitations as the further comprising deriving final limitation in Claim 17 and does not further limit independent claim 17. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 13 and 17 recite limitations for deriving an importance score based on a forecasted impact of host actions on a listing, estimating a conversion probability for each action representing a likelihood that a host will implement an action, and aggregating the importance score and the conversion probability to generate a final host action ranking score. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Deriving scores, estimating a conversion probability and aggregating a score and probability illustrate high level evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Additionally, the dependent claims illustrate how the score uses particular formulas/functions and therefore the deriving, estimating and aggregating could be also be considered a mathematical concepts. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component (processor), model (programmed instructions) or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including a processor that retrieves and provides host actions, memory storing instructions, and a data store from which data is retrieved as well as the models of the system that are configured to execute the deriving, estimating and aggregating steps. The processor and memory storing executable instructions illustrate a generic link to a technical environment where the steps are applied or performed “by a computer”. The retrieving and providing are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The models and processor that perform the deriving, estimating and aggregating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the retrieving and providing steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 17 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation and mathematical concept steps including describing specific functions for scoring, the forecast lift, additional mental processes including determining an eligibility status to derive eligible actions, the status indicative of qualifications, applying/evaluating guardrailing rules to derive the importance score, describing the rule and comprising regulatory, behavior or a combination of the types of rules, creating a ranked list of actions based on the score, and describing the models used to derive scores. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe additional elements for presenting outputs in a GUI comprising a dashboard configured to display revenue opportunities and charts. Presenting a GUI comprising a dashboard and instructions causing a processor to display a chart are considered insignificant extra solution activity in that they demonstrate data transmission or outputting. Merely outputting results and data do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. When re-evaluated in step 2B presenting and displaying are determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission/outputting/presenting/displaying of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are considered to recite novel subject matter that is allowable over prior art. None of the prior art or record taken individually or in combination teaches an importance score for host actions based on a forecasted impact of the action on the listing in a plurality of listings, estimating a conversion probability that represents a likelihood that a host of the listing network platform will implement a host action, and aggregating the importance score and conversion probability to generate a final host action ranking score that is used as a basis for providing recommendations.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duncan (US 2016/0071117) teaches a system and method for using market automation activity data for lead prioritization and marketing campaign optimization. Duncan predicts lead conversion using probability and maps topic importances using a Mean Topic Importance score. Duncan’s importance and activity scores are not for host actions or based on the impact the action will have on a listing, the conversion probability is not a likelihood that the action will be implemented and the scores and probability are not aggregated to generate a final score used to rank and recommend host actions.
Jain et al. (US 11,636,500) teaches an adaptive server architecture for controlling allocation of programs among networked devices. Jain describes the ability to weight or prioritize recommendations using scoring processes while accounting for the likelihood of compliance, retention, success and participation. Importance of attributes of users and the users completing a program varies for different programs. The importance and scores are not for host actions or based on the impact the action will have on a listing, the likelihoods described are not a conversion probability or likelihood that the action will be implemented and the scores and probability are not aggregated to generate a final score used to rank and recommend host actions.
Reynolds et al. (US 2008/0065471) teaches determining strategies for increasing loyalty of a population to an entity. The method and system providing a framework for designing research for uncovering decision making networks, an interface to schedule and administer question sequences, a coding and analysis system for summarizing, qualifying and optimizing the development of marketing and communication strategies. Reynolds describes determining importance values and likelihood calculations as well as ranking categories and data based on importance. Reynolds’ importance scores are not for host actions or based on the impact the action will have on a listing, the likelihood is not a conversion probability/likelihood that the action will be implemented and the scores and probability are not aggregated to generate a final score used to rank and recommend host actions for a listing.
Bender et al. (US 2019/0251492) teaches cognitive optimization of work permit application and risk assessment including analyzing the overall probability of success to identify attributes impacting the probability, and determining recommended changes to improve the overall probability. Impact scores are determined and action recommendations are made based on the impact score. Bender’s importance/impact scores are not for host actions or based on the impact the action will have on a listing, the probabilities discussed do not include a conversion probability indicating a likelihood that an action will be implemented and the scores and probability are not aggregated to generate a final score used to rank and recommend host actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights