DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is pending. Claim 1 is 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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/3/2025 and 4/3/2026 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘920) is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,333,558 (Hereby known as ‘558). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the current application (‘920) recites substantially similar steps of '558 – Claim 1.
Claim 1 of ‘920 recites the steps of:
accessing, by one or more computing devices, a plurality of unidentified events;
calculating, using a machine-learned prediction model, a number of pseudo users associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on a total number of unidentified events;
calculating, using the machine-learned prediction model, a number of sessions associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on the total number of unidentified events; and
generating an analytics report for a website, the analytics report includes information derived from the number of pseudo users and the number of sessions, wherein the analytics report is used to adjust a parameter of the machine-learned prediction model.
Whereas Claim 1 of ‘558 states:
accessing, by one or more computing devices, a plurality of unidentified events, the plurality of unidentified events having a total number of unidentified events, and wherein each event in the plurality of unidentified events being associated with one or more properties; calculating, using a machine-learned prediction model, a number of pseudo users associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on an event-to-user-ratio and the total number of unidentified events;
calculating, using the machine-learned prediction model, a number of sessions associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on an event-to-session-ratio and the total number of unidentified events, wherein the machine-learned prediction model determines the event-to-session-ratio based on data derived from a plurality of identified events associated with identified users of the website that have accepted identifiers when browsing the website;
assigning, using the machine-learned prediction model, a first event from the plurality of unidentified events to a first pseudo user based on the one or more properties of the first event;
generating an analytics report for a website, the analytics report includes information derived from the number of pseudo users, the number of sessions, and the first event being assigned to the first pseudo user; and
adjusting a parameter of the machine-learned prediction model based data derived from the analytics report, the data derived from the analytics report includes the number of pseudo users or the number of sessions.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claim 1 of the current application is an obvious variant of claim 1 in ‘558.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the limitations for accessing, a plurality of unidentified events (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. analyzing customer/user behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); calculating, using a machine-learned prediction model, a number of pseudo users associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on a total number of unidentified events (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. analyzing customer/user behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), calculating, using the machine-learned prediction model, a number of sessions associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on the total number of unidentified events (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. analyzing customer/user behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and generating an analytics report for a website, the analytics report includes information derived from the number of pseudo users and the number of sessions, wherein the analytics report is used to adjust a parameter of the machine-learned prediction model (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. analyzing customer/user behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of evaluating data using a comparison, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of one or more computing devices, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of transmitting an analytics report of user/customer behavior, which is a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. 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 a Commercial Interaction, 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 one or more computing devices 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 transmitting steps above are at best 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:
“[0061] The user computing device 102 can be any type of computing device, such as,
for example, a personal computing device (e.g., laptop or desktop), a mobile computing device (e.g., smartphone or tablet), a gaming console or controller, a wearable computing device, an embedded computing device, or any other type of computing device.”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., 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 transmitting 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 computer, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddo (U.S. Publication No. 2007/001,1039) in view of Negi (U.S. Publication No. 2020/032,7444) in further view of Muddu (U.S. Publication No. 2020/002,1607).
Regarding Claim 1, Oddo, a system and method for generating audience analytics, teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
accessing, by one or more computing devices, a plurality of unidentified events ([0011] [0284-285] [0338] and [0352] events which are unidentified that are associated with attributes/properties of the events);
calculating, using a machine-learned prediction model, a number of pseudo users associated with the plurality of unidentified events and a total number of unidentified events ([0110-112] [0255-256] [0284-285] [0325-338] and [0345-35] a machine learning model is used to associated users to events based on calculations and number of events as in [0284-301] and [0332-352]);
calculating, using the machine-learned prediction model, a number of sessions associated with the plurality of unidentified events based on the total number of unidentified events ([0063] user session time and number of sessions is taken into account);
Although Odd teaches generating an analytics report for a website, the analytics report includes information derived from the number of users being assigned to the first pseudo user as in [0011, 23-27, and 355-357] and that the neural network learns as in [0329], it does not explicitly state they are pseudo users nor does it state machine learning with the parameters being adjusted.
Negi, a system and method for customer journey event representation learning and outcome prediction using neural sequence models, teaches pseudo users and events being tied to users for analytics as in [0099].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the users and analysis of Oddo with the analytics of Negi as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to data analytics, and it is old and well-known to use regression models as taught in [0057] of Negi, and the combination would lead to an improved system that would increase chat interactions which would increase product sales as taught in [0070] of Negi.
Although Negi states configuration of parameters for machine learning as in [0053] and [0057], it does not explicitly state adjustment of machine learning parameters.
Muddu, a method and system for anomaly detection based on ensemble machine learning, teaches adjusting of machine learning parameters as in [0167] along with tracking the number of sessions as in [0255].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the pseudo users and analysis using machine learning of the combination of Oddo and Negi with the adjustment of parameters of Muddu as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to data analytics, and the combination would lead to an improved system that would adapt more efficiently to the environment as taught in [0162] of Muddu.
Examiner notes that Oddo teaches a computing system, one or more processors, computer-readable media ([0031] computer with processors and medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200327444 A1
Negi; Sapna et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CUSTOMER JOURNEY EVENT REPRESENTATION LEARNING AND OUTCOME PREDICTION USING NEURAL SEQUENCE MODELS
US 20200021607 A1
Muddu; Sudhakar et al.
Detecting Anomalies in a Computer Network Based on Usage Similarity Scores
US 20070011039 A1
Oddo; Anthony Scott
Generating audience analytics
US 20260170419 A1
Muddu; Sudhakar et al.
ANOMALY DETECTION BASED ON ENSEMBLE MACHINE LEARNING MODEL
US 20220109685 A1
Hankins; Scott Andrew et al.
Network device identification via similarity of operation and auto-labeling
US 20220043412 A1
Dedul; Kirill et al.
INTEGRATED HEAT MANAGEMENT FOR A BUILDING
US 20220005063 A1
NEUENSCHWANDER; Nicholas E et al.
System and Methods for Delivering Targeted Marketing Offers to Consumers via Mobile Application and Online Portals
US 20190095411 A1
Ling, III; Thomas Chow et al.
OBTAINING DATA FROM INCOMPLETE ELECTRONIC FORMS
US 20180315060 A1
Sheppard; Michael et al.
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ESTIMATE MEDIA IMPRESSION FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
US 20170299624 A1
Jain; Anand et al.
MULTIPLE METER DETECTION AND PROCESSING USING MOTION DATA
US 20170228355 A1
Ling, III; Thomas Chow et al.
OBTAINING DATA FROM INCOMPLETE ELECTRONIC FORMS
US 20160267507 A1
Calman; Matthew A. et al.
PROVIDING SOCIAL IMPACT INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH IDENTIFIED PRODUCTS OR BUSINESSES
US 20160267506 A1
Calman; Matthew A. et al.
PROVIDING SOCIAL IMPACT INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH IDENTIFIED PRODUCTS OR BUSINESSES
US 20160163000 A1
Calman; Matthew A. et al.
POPULATING BUDGETS AND/OR WISH LISTS USING REAL-TIME VIDEO IMAGE ANALYSIS
US 20160162982 A1
Calman; Matthew A. et al.
POPULATING BUDGETS AND/OR WISH LISTS USING REAL-TIME VIDEO IMAGE ANALYSIS
US 20160148273 A1
Ling, III; Thomas Chow et al.
OBTAINING DATA FROM ABANDONED ELECTRONIC FORMS
US 20160086108 A1
Abelow; Daniel H.
CONTINUOUS DYNAMIC BOUNDARIES
US 10819812 B2
Foged; Leif Erik et al.
Automatic recipient targeting for notifications
US 10705796 B1
Doyle; Timothy B.
Methods, systems, and computer program product for implementing real-time or near real-time classification of digital data
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 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights