DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
2. The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant's communications received June 5, 2025. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Continuation
3. This application is a continuation Application of US Application No. 18/499,613, filed 11/01/2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12354124; US Application No. 17/705,483, filed 03/28/2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11/823,218; US Application No. 16366542, filed 03/27/2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11/288,688. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory 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 /n 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:/Awww.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-l.jsp.
5. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12/354,124).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before". in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
7. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11/823,218).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before". in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 21-40 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:
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 21 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 31is a system claim. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1:
The claims recite the limitations in the abstract idea indicated in non-bold and the additional elements in bold.
Claim 21 recites:
tailoring a service for a particular customer according to a customer segment that comprises the particular customer, wherein the customer segment is one of a plurality of customer segments;
updating the plurality of customer segments over time to increase similarity among customers within each customer segment, wherein the similarity is determined according to customer data comprising transaction-related data and customer attribute data;
applying an optimization model, via a segmentation engine, to account for the customer data associated with at least one customer segment; and
recursively partitioning customer sets using the segmentation engine until a target segmentation structure for a customer population is obtained.
Claim 22 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing product recommendations according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 23 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing product promotions according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 24 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing coupons according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 25 further recites wherein increasing similarity among customers within each customer segment is performed according to one or more solutions of an optimization problem.
Claim 26 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments comprises identifying a customer segment having a population exceeding a threshold and partitioning the identified customer segment.
Claim 27 further recites wherein transaction-related data is stored in one or more data structures such that each record comprises transaction information and a customer identifier associated with the transaction information.
Claim 28 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments comprises aggregating multiple item identifiers under a common identifier and updating the customer segments according to the aggregated identifier.
Claim 29 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments is performed using a customer-item matrix, wherein rows correspond to customer identifiers and columns correspond to item-related identifiers.
Claim 30 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments is performed using a customer-item matrix, and wherein values of the customer-item matrix are normalized according to a quantile-based standardization.
Claim 31 recites one or more processors configured to:
tailor a service for a particular customer according to a customer segment that comprises the particular customer, wherein the customer segment is one of a plurality of customer segments, and update the plurality of customer segments over time to increase similarity among customers within each customer segment according to customer data; and
a segmentation engine configured to apply an optimization model to the customer data and to recursively partition customer sets until a target segmentation structure for a customer population is obtained.
Claim 32 further recites provide product recommendations according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 33 further recites provide product promotions according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 34 further recites provide coupons according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 35 further recites increase similarity among customers within each customer segment according to one or more solutions of an optimization problem.
Claim 36 further recites update the plurality of customer segments by identifying a customer segment exceeding a population threshold and partitioning the identified customer segment.
Claim 37 further recites one or more data stores configured to store transaction-related data in records that comprise transaction information and customer identifiers.
Claim 38 further recites aggregate multiple item identifiers under a common identifier and update the customer segments according to the aggregated identifier.
Claim 39 further recites update the plurality of customer segments using a customer-item matrix, wherein rows correspond to customer identifiers and columns correspond to item-related identifiers.
Claim 40 further recites update the plurality of customer segments using a customer-item matrix having values standardized using a quantile-based normalization.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Regarding independent claims 21 and 38, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) because it amounts to the concept of applying an optimization model, via a segmentation engine, to account for customer data associated with at least one customer segment”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims can also be described as a "mathematical relationship/formula", which can includes mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The claim limitations in bold below represent the "additional elements."
Claim 21 recites:
tailoring a service for a particular customer according to a customer segment that comprises the particular customer, wherein the customer segment is one of a plurality of customer segments;
updating the plurality of customer segments over time to increase similarity among customers within each customer segment, wherein the similarity is determined according to customer data comprising transaction-related data and customer attribute data;
applying an optimization model, via a segmentation engine, to account for the customer data associated with at least one customer segment; and
recursively partitioning customer sets using the segmentation engine until a target segmentation structure for a customer population is obtained.
Claim 22 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing product recommendations according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 23 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing product promotions according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 24 further recites wherein tailoring the service comprises providing coupons according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 25 further recites wherein increasing similarity among customers within each customer segment is performed according to one or more solutions of an optimization problem.
Claim 26 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments comprises identifying a customer segment having a population exceeding a threshold and partitioning the identified customer segment.
Claim 27 further recites wherein transaction-related data is stored in one or more data structures such that each record comprises transaction information and a customer identifier associated with the transaction information.
Claim 28 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments comprises aggregating multiple item identifiers under a common identifier and updating the customer segments according to the aggregated identifier.
Claim 29 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments is performed using a customer-item matrix, wherein rows correspond to customer identifiers and columns correspond to item-related identifiers.
Claim 30 further recites wherein updating the plurality of customer segments is performed using a customer-item matrix, and wherein values of the customer-item matrix are normalized according to a quantile-based standardization.
Claim 31 recites one or more processors configured to:
tailor a service for a particular customer according to a customer segment that comprises the particular customer, wherein the customer segment is one of a plurality of customer segments, and update the plurality of customer segments over time to increase similarity among customers within each customer segment according to customer data; and a segmentation engine configured to apply an optimization model to the customer data and to recursively partition customer sets until a target segmentation structure for a customer population is obtained.
Claim 32 further recites provide product recommendations according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 33 further recites provide product promotions according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 34 further recites provide coupons according to the customer segment comprising the particular customer.
Claim 35 further recites increase similarity among customers within each customer segment according to one or more solutions of an optimization problem.
Claim 36 further recites update the plurality of customer segments by identifying a customer segment exceeding a population threshold and partitioning the identified customer segment.
Claim 37 further recites one or more data stores configured to store transaction-related data in records that comprise transaction information and customer identifiers.
Claim 38 further recites aggregate multiple item identifiers under a common identifier and update the customer segments according to the aggregated identifier.
Claim 39 further recites update the plurality of customer segments using a customer-item matrix, wherein rows correspond to customer identifiers and columns correspond to item-related identifiers.
Claim 40 further recites update the plurality of customer segments using a customer-item matrix having values standardized using a quantile-based normalization.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the claims recite additional elements including a generic data gathering step of segmentation engine and a processor.
The claimed “segmentation engine and “processor” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. payment transaction data).
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (1 ).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Accordingly, the 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. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a "segmentation engine" and "processor", does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor is noted to a be a generic computer for determining a plurality of similarity values associated with the plurality of creators based on the generated data representation, wherein each similarity value of the plurality of similarity values comprises a similarity of the first creator with a creator of the plurality of creators. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed "segmentation engine", and "processor" are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22-30 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 21. Dependent claims 32-40 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 31. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 22-30 and 32-40 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
10. NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC§ 103. Claims 21-40 would be allowable if overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
- Stengard et al (US Publication No. 20100114665) teach a system that generates a customer reference recommendation based on similarity to other customers. The system includes a customer data file including demographic data and past purchasing pattern data for a plurality of customers, a first cluster model trained on the demographic data, and a second cluster model trained on the past purchasing pattern data. A customer reference generator produces a customer reference recommendation based on cluster membership in the first and second cluster models.
- Eldering (US Patent No. 7165037) teaches a merchant clusters for which the consumer has the highest membership values are of particular interest: they are the clusters in which the consumer will spend the most money in the future, or whose spending habits are most similar to the merchants in the cluster. This allows very specific and accurate targeting of promotions, advertising and the like to these
consumers. A financial institution using the predicted spending information can
direct promotional offers to consumers who are predicted to spend heavily in a
merchant segment, with the promotional offers associated with merchants in the
merchant segment.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As per attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571)272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM to 5:30PM.
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 at 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.
/RJ/
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights