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 .
Applicant filed a response dated March 23, 2026 in which claims 1, 21, 24, and 30-31 have been amended claims 2, 10-11, and 13-20 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 21-31 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Application 18/146,173 filed December 23, 2022 claims benefit of 63/358,320 filed July 5, 2022 and claims benefit of 63/305,486 filed February 1, 2022.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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, 3-9, 12, and 21-31 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. (MPEP 2106). The claims are directed to a method and system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The recitation of the claimed invention is analyzed as follows, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method for outputting result data to an output device, the method comprising: using at least one hardware processor for extracting code for: populating a portfolio management database with one or more data records from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of: altering at least a portion of the one or more data records, and selecting a portion of the one or more data records based on one or more rules for the portfolio management database;
receiving at least one search string associated with a search of the portfolio management database;
searching the portfolio management database using the at least one search string,
wherein one of a broad matching or a strict matching of the at least one search string is performed based on a geographic location provided in the at least one search string;
generating result data based, at least in part, on the searching; and
outputting result data to a user interface.
Claim 24 recites the limitations of:
A system for outputting result data to an output device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: populate a portfolio management database with one or more data records from at least one database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of: altering at least a portion of the one or more data records, and selecting a portion of the one or more data records based on one or more rules for the portfolio management database;
receiving at least one search string associated with a search of the portfolio management database;
searching the portfolio management database based on the at least one search string,
wherein one of a broad matching or a strict matching is performed based on a geographic location provided in the at least one search string;
generating result data based, at least in part, on the searching; and
outputting result data to a user interface.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management or accounting of portfolio data, which is a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than reciting a “A computer-implemented method for outputting result data to an output device, the method comprising: using at least one hardware processor for extracting code for: populating a portfolio management database with one or more data records from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, “portfolio management database”, “user interface”, and “A system for outputting result data to an output device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: populate a portfolio management database with one or more data records from at least one database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, to perform the “altering”, “selecting”, “searching”, “generating”, and “outputting”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being a certain method for organizing human activity. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of covers management or accounting of portfolio data in a computer environment. The additional computer elements recited in the claim limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception utilizing generic computer components.
For example, the Specification at [0060] discloses “[0060] In any embodiment, the data management system 202 can include one or more servers 204 such as application servers, database servers, and data servers. The user device 204 can include one or more devices associated with user profiles of the portfolio management system 101, such as a smartphone, tablet, or other mobile device and/or a personal computer. The portfolio management system 101 can include external resources such as an external application server 208 and/or an external database server 205. The various elements of the portfolio management system 101 can communicate via various communication links through one or more networks. An external resource can generally be considered a data resource owned and/or operated by an entity other than an entity that utilizes the portfolio management system 101 and/or the user device 206. The user devices 206 also can present, on a display device, a graphical user interface (GUI) that may display the output data to a user, shown as 104, herein.”
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, in viewing the additional elements both individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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. (Step 2A prong two: No)
The claim does not include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 of using “A computer-implemented method for outputting result data to an output device, the method comprising: using at least one hardware processor for extracting code for: populating a portfolio management database with one or more data records from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, “portfolio management database”, “user interface”, and “A system for outputting result data to an output device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: populate a portfolio management database with one or more data records from at least one database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, to perform the “altering”, “selecting”, “searching”, “generating”, and “outputting”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of management or accounting of portfolio data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Such additional elements are determined to not contain an inventive concept according to MPEP 2106.05(f). It should be noted that (1) the “recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, and (2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental process, or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
Dependent claims 3-9, 12, 21-23, and 25-31 merely limit the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements beyond the cited abstract idea and the elements addressed above, thus, they do not amount to significantly more. The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 21-31 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Erlanger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0047098.
As per claim 1,
Harger explicitly teaches:
A computer-implemented method for outputting result data to an output device, the method comprising: using at least one hardware processor for extracting code for: populating a portfolio management database with one or more data records [from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database], wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of: altering at least a portion of the one or more data records, and selecting a portion of the one or more data records based on one or more rules for the portfolio management database;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) ([0050] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating more details of the master entity index system 50, and in particular the MEI 52 and the data store 54. The MEI 52 may include an addition and updating unit 70, a monitor unit 72 and a query unit 74. The addition and updating unit may add data records about a new entity into the data store, update data records in the data store, or add new rules to the control databases. The monitor unit may permit a user of the master entity index system to view special conditions, known as exceptions, generated by the MEI. For example, a data record that requires a person to view the data record due to an error may be tagged and a message to the operator may be generated. The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
receiving at least one search string associated with a search of the portfolio management database;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) (The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
generating result data based, at least in part, on the searching; and
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) (The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
outputting result data to a user interface.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51, 79) (the MEI retrieves data records which have data fields that match the attributes provided in the query and displays those located data records for the user.)
Harger does not explicitly teach, however, Orun does teach:
searching the portfolio management database using the at least one search string,
(Orun US20190114354 at paras. 19-23) ("[0020] The customer resolution engine can cleanse, normalize, and enrich entity data as needed. For example, a traditional match rule for uniquely identifying a person may process the data set that includes “John Smith/1 Main St, San Francisco, Calif. 94105” and “John Smith/11 Main St, San Francisco, Calif. 94105,” and identify two unique people. While a traditional match rule can match addresses by using “fuzzy” strings, in isolation this fuzzy matching can lead to false positives, as there could be two different John Smiths at different addresses. In contrast, the customer resolution engine can more intelligently apply matching rules by incorporating identifier reliability into the matching process. For this example, the customer resolution engine captures and leverages data validation and enrichment attributes as part of the identifier attributes to determine that “11 Main St” is not a valid street address for “San Francisco, Calif. 94105,” infer a data entry error in the street number, and then identify the nearest string or geo-proximity match as a reliable candidate, thereby identifying only one unique John Smith on Main Street in San Francisco.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger and Orun, because it allows for an improved methods and systems for entity identifier clustering based on context scores. (Orun at Abstract and paras. 3-13).
Harger and Orun do not explicitly teach, however, Bem does teach:
wherein one of a broad matching or a strict matching of the at least one search string is performed based on a geographic location provided in the at least one search string;
(Bem US20050080772 at paras. 37-40, 48, 53, 57-58, 96-100) ("[0040] The request for ads may also include the query (as entered or parsed), information based on the query (such as geolocation information, whether the query came from an affiliate and an identifier of such an affiliate, and/or as described below, information related to, and/or derived from, the search query), and/or information associated with, or based on, the search results." "[0042] Finally, the search engine 220 may transmit information about the ad and when, where, and/or how the ad was to be rendered (e.g., position, click-through or not, impression time, impression date, size, conversion or not, etc.) back to the ad server 120/210. As described below, such information may include information for determining on what basis the ad way determined relevant (e.g., strict or relaxed match, or exact, phrase, or broad match, etc.)" "[0047] When an online ad is served, one or more parameters may be used to describe how, when, and/or where the ad was served. These parameters are referred to as “serving parameters” below. Serving parameters may include, for example, one or more of the following: features of (including information on) a page on which the ad was served, a search query or search results associated with the serving of the ad, a user characteristic (e.g., their geolocation, the language used by the user, the type of browser used, previous page views, previous behavior)," "[0053] “User information” may include user behavior information and/or user profile information. It may also include a user's geolocation, or an estimation of the user's geolocation." "[0058] The present invention may also be used to adjust a score of an ad depending upon the type of match used to find that the ad was relevant to search query information. For example, the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a more relaxed notion of match may be decreased and/or the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a stricter notion of match may be increased." "[0097] The present invention may be used in a system employing (a) exact matching (where the query must be identical the keyword targeting criterion), (b) phrase matching (where the query must contain the targeting criterion words in the order specified by the phrase) and and/or (c) broad matching (where the query must contain the any one of one or more of the targeting criterion keywords, in any order).")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, and Bem, because it allows for an improved system of identifying ads that are relevant to a search query, even if the search query doesn't contain the exact words targeted by the advertiser and the invention may be used to increase a performance threshold as match confidence decreases, and/or decrease a performance threshold as match confidence increases. (Bem at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Erlanger does teach:
from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database,
(Erlanger US20110047098 at paras. 435-451) ("[0435] The present invention in one embodiment is a data processing system having one or more program executing computers, and one or more data storage devices, which processes data captured in the application processes and in subsequent transactions. In particular, the invention incorporates one or more computer program products executing on the data processing system 101, which incorporate the following steps: [0436] receiving or extracting or generating data elements regarding financial products contracts, [0437] determining valuations of the financial products contracts by calculation or comparison methods; [0438] creating a data report in a standard data format containing the financial products contracts data elements, [0439] storing the data report in the one or more data storage devices, [0440] receiving new data items regarding one or more of the financial products contracts, [0441] adding to or modifying the data report to create an updated data report incorporating the new data items, [0442] determining updated valuations of the financial products contracts by calculation or comparison methods, and [0443] storing the updated data report with the updated valuations of the financial products contracts in the one or more data storage devices." "[0451] This data can then be used to calculate value, either by using financial analysis tools, or by making a comparison to one or more comparable instruments having a known value or related risk. The process is the same for each type of financial risk. Real valuations may be established by linking different accounting/jurisprudential/regulatory standards, contract types, valuations by “comparable asset types” and anticipated cash flows, overlays of different databases detailing any form of risk-related subjects. The latter would include everything from comparisons of operating metrics that measure different type of operating performance risks on a per platform basis (as measured by: conversion/pull-through rates), to value or risk-related information like appraisals, medical histories, mortality rates, diet and exercise, economic or geographic or geologic information, etc.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger, because it provides an enhanced data processing system that improves the efficiency of component analysis of pooled securities for primary and secondary markets. (Erlanger at Abstract and paras. 11-17 and 81).
As per claim 4,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises: determining a set of candidate data records from the one or more data records, wherein the determination of the set of candidate data records is based, at least in part, on a standardization of one or more geographic location identifiers of the one or more data records;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 70-73) ([0072] FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a method 190 for updating an existing data record containing information about a new or existing entity in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. Updates occur when an information source receives new information concerning an entity for which is already in its data store. The new information received by the information source will be communicated to the MEI through the update operation. To perform the update method, the MEI may first test the input data for validity in step 191, using the same method as in step 172 of the add new record operation described in FIG. 7. If the validation process fails, in step 199 an exception may be created that indicates that invalid data is received, the exception handling method described above may be performed, and the processing of the update existing data record operation is complete. The MEI may then standardize the input data in step 192, using the same method as in step 174 of the add new record operation. The MEI may then attempt in step 193 to determine if a data record with the same record identifier as the standardized input data already exists in the data record database. If the standardized input data does not have the same record identifier as an existing data record, a new item may be added to the exception database in step 199 indicating that a duplicate data record was located, and no further processing is performed.)
filtering the set of candidate data records, wherein filtering the set of candidate records is based, at least in part, on a set of relevancy rules for the portfolio management database;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 71-73) ([0072] FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating a method 190 for updating an existing data record containing information about a new or existing entity in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. Updates occur when an information source receives new information concerning an entity for which is already in its data store. The new information received by the information source will be communicated to the MEI through the update operation. To perform the update method, the MEI may first test the input data for validity in step 191, using the same method as in step 172 of the add new record operation described in FIG. 7. If the validation process fails, in step 199 an exception may be created that indicates that invalid data is received, the exception handling method described above may be performed, and the processing of the update existing data record operation is complete. The MEI may then standardize the input data in step 192, using the same method as in step 174 of the add new record operation. The MEI may then attempt in step 193 to determine if a data record with the same record identifier as the standardized input data already exists in the data record database. If the standardized input data does not have the same record identifier as an existing data record, a new item may be added to the exception database in step 199 indicating that a duplicate data record was located, and no further processing is performed.)
converting the set of candidate data records, which were filtered, into one or more portfolio data records; and
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 74-76) (If at least one, other data record was returned, the incoming data record and matching data records may be synthesized in step 216. The synthesis process combines the data values in the new record and the existing records associated with the entities. The MEI may then in step 218 determine if a condition indicating a synthesis exception has occurred, as defined by the current contents of the exception database. For example, if the incoming data record lists the sex of the entity as male while one of the matching data records lists the sex of the entity as female, and the exception database states that coalescing records with different sexes is an exceptional condition, an exceptional condition will be identified.)
linking one or more portfolio data records based, at least in part, on the converting.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 74-76) (If an exception occurs, in step 220 the MEI may create and handle the appropriate synthesis exception and the processing of the match/link operation is complete. If there are no synthesis exceptions, then in step 222, the MEI may determine the number of identity records currently held in the identity database that link data records which match the input data record. If no identity records exist, in step 224, a record may be added to the identity database with a new unique base part and a version number of 0. If exactly one identity record exists, in step 226 the MEI may update this record to add a link to the input data record. If more than one identity record exists, the MEI in step 228 may “coalesce” these records—that is, remove the existing identity records and replaces them with a single identity record linking the input data records with all the data records returned in step 212. After one of steps 224, 226, and 228 are performed, the processing of the match/link operation has been completed.)
As per claim 7,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein the searching further comprises selecting one or more matching candidates from the portfolio management database, based, at least in part, on a set of business rules.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 65-67) ([0066] Additional queries may be performed by the MEI. The MEI may be queried about the number of entities in the MEI database and the MEI may respond with the number of entities in the MEI database. The MEI may also be queried about the volatility (e.g., the frequency that the data records change) of the data in the data records using a timestamp indicating the last time and number of times that the data has been changed that may be associated with each data record in the MEI. The volatility of the data may indicate fraud if the data about a particular entity is changing frequently. The MEI may also be queried about the past history of changes of the data in the data records so that, for example, the past addresses for a particular entity may be displayed. Once the queries or matches have been completed, the data is returned to the user in step 138. The MEI may then determine whether there are additional queries to be performed in step 140 and return to step 122 if additional queries are going to be conducted. If there are no additional queries, the method ends. Now, an exception processing method that may be executed by the MEI will be described.)
As per claim 9,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein the set of business rules includes location characteristics.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 65-67) ([0066] Additional queries may be performed by the MEI. The MEI may be queried about the number of entities in the MEI database and the MEI may respond with the number of entities in the MEI database. The MEI may also be queried about the volatility (e.g., the frequency that the data records change) of the data in the data records using a timestamp indicating the last time and number of times that the data has been changed that may be associated with each data record in the MEI. The volatility of the data may indicate fraud if the data about a particular entity is changing frequently. The MEI may also be queried about the past history of changes of the data in the data records so that, for example, the past addresses for a particular entity may be displayed. Once the queries or matches have been completed, the data is returned to the user in step 138. The MEI may then determine whether there are additional queries to be performed in step 140 and return to step 122 if additional queries are going to be conducted. If there are no additional queries, the method ends. Now, an exception processing method that may be executed by the MEI will be described.)
As per claim 12,
Harger explicitly teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving an update to the at least one search string; generating new result data based, at least in part, on the update to the at least one search string; and updating the user interface based on the new result data.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 61-63) (The MEI may then determine whether there are additional addition or updating operations to perform in step 114 based on the user's response and either exit the method or return to step 102 so that the user may select another addition or updating operation. The add/update/delete operation may also be used for the control databases to add/update information in those databases, and additional processing may occur due to changes in the control databases which may change the identity database. In all of those cases, the additional processing is to identify the existing identity records that are impacted by the modification, and to use the match/link operation to re-compute the appropriate entries in the identity database. For example, removing a record for the anonymous name database would cause re-computation of identities of all records with that anonymous name, and all records linked to those records.)
As per claim 22,
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Erlanger does teach:
the method further comprising: converting the one or more data records from the plurality of databases comprising the product database, the policy database, the risk engineering database, the claim database, and the customer valuation database into a new standardized format.
(Erlanger US20110047098 at paras. 435-451) ("[0447] The data report created from these data elements is in a standard format so that the data contained in the report is consistently searchable, combinable, and updatable. Thus, the data in the data report can be used to instantiate an OLAP cube for analysis of the data contained in the reports. The data elements can be stored in a relational database or other database. Alternatively, in a preferred embodiment, the data elements do not require a relational database and are stored with associated data tags to identify each data element. In the most preferred embodiment, the data tags are XML tags. In one version of the preferred embodiment, the standard data format is an XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) data format.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger, because it provides an enhanced data processing system that improves the efficiency of component analysis of pooled securities for primary and secondary markets. (Erlanger at Abstract and paras. 11-17 and 81).
As per claim 29,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein the one or more processors is further configured to populate the portfolio management database
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) ([0050] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating more details of the master entity index system 50, and in particular the MEI 52 and the data store 54. The MEI 52 may include an addition and updating unit 70, a monitor unit 72 and a query unit 74. The addition and updating unit may add data records about a new entity into the data store, update data records in the data store, or add new rules to the control databases. The monitor unit may permit a user of the master entity index system to view special conditions, known as exceptions, generated by the MEI. For example, a data record that requires a person to view the data record due to an error may be tagged and a message to the operator may be generated. The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Erlanger does teach:
with one or more data records from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a policy database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database.
(Erlanger US20110047098 at paras. 435-451) ("[0435] The present invention in one embodiment is a data processing system having one or more program executing computers, and one or more data storage devices, which processes data captured in the application processes and in subsequent transactions. In particular, the invention incorporates one or more computer program products executing on the data processing system 101, which incorporate the following steps: [0436] receiving or extracting or generating data elements regarding financial products contracts, [0437] determining valuations of the financial products contracts by calculation or comparison methods; [0438] creating a data report in a standard data format containing the financial products contracts data elements, [0439] storing the data report in the one or more data storage devices, [0440] receiving new data items regarding one or more of the financial products contracts, [0441] adding to or modifying the data report to create an updated data report incorporating the new data items, [0442] determining updated valuations of the financial products contracts by calculation or comparison methods, and [0443] storing the updated data report with the updated valuations of the financial products contracts in the one or more data storage devices." "[0451] This data can then be used to calculate value, either by using financial analysis tools, or by making a comparison to one or more comparable instruments having a known value or related risk. The process is the same for each type of financial risk. Real valuations may be established by linking different accounting/jurisprudential/regulatory standards, contract types, valuations by “comparable asset types” and anticipated cash flows, overlays of different databases detailing any form of risk-related subjects. The latter would include everything from comparisons of operating metrics that measure different type of operating performance risks on a per platform basis (as measured by: conversion/pull-through rates), to value or risk-related information like appraisals, medical histories, mortality rates, diet and exercise, economic or geographic or geologic information, etc.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger, because it provides an enhanced data processing system that improves the efficiency of component analysis of pooled securities for primary and secondary markets. (Erlanger at Abstract and paras. 11-17 and 81).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Erlanger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0047098; in view of Deanne, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0257986.
As per claim 3,
Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger do not explicitly teach, however, Deanne does teach:
wherein the one or more data records include property valuations and the method further comprises: comparing a current property valuation to a historic property valuation; determining that the current property valuation differs from the historic property valuation; and generating a report of a difference in the current property valuation and the historic property valuation.
(Deanne US20110257986 at paras. 32-39) ([0033] Once the user completes the inputs, the address is sent to the property database. In the first embodiment, a property database maintained by a vendor then looks up the stored values for the property address and returns both a market value and an assessed value for that property to the website calculator (FIGS. 1 to 3), for the “as of date” specified by the taxing authority. In addition, any adjustments to the assessed value, as previously described, are made. [0034] The calculator compares assessed value to market value as shown and returns a response to the user indicating whether the market value is greater than, approximately the same as, or less than, the assessed value. [0035] After comparing assessed value to market value, the first embodiment may display the results to the user in a variety of formats: by showing both assessed and market values, by showing only the difference, by showing metaphorically whether the market value is higher than, the same as, or lower than assessed value, such as by using red, yellow or green stop-lights, or by showing houses of varying sizes. The embodiment may use any combination of written or spoken words, numbers, symbols, or metaphors to convey to the user the market value to assessed value differential. At this point, depending upon the results, a variety of options are possible. FIG. 2 describes the flow path based on output from the calculator.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Deanne, because it allows for an improved method that will maintain a high degree of fairness to both the user, the taxing authority (in the case of the first embodiment), or to an insurance company, the IRS, or others who may depend on the Property Valuation Report (in the case of the second embodiment) and to prevent unfair manipulation of said Property Valuations or other adverse consequences, while at the same time improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the tax appeals process (in the case of the first embodiment) and improving overall access to time-shifted market valuations (in the case of the second embodiment). (Deanne at Abstract and paras. 2-15, 45-47).
As per claim 8,
Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger do not explicitly teach, however, Deanne does teach:
wherein the set of business rules includes insurance- specific policy characteristics.
(Deanne US20110257986 at paras. 16, 46-47) (The invention's second embodiment solves a problem relating to discovering past, present and future valuations of specific properties. For example, a property owner might need to determine the value of a personal residence six months in the past to determine the property's value just prior to a catastrophic loss of the home, such as from a fire or hurricane, to make a valid insurance claim.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Deanne, because it allows for an improved method that will maintain a high degree of fairness to both the user, the taxing authority (in the case of the first embodiment), or to an insurance company, the IRS, or others who may depend on the Property Valuation Report (in the case of the second embodiment) and to prevent unfair manipulation of said Property Valuations or other adverse consequences, while at the same time improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the tax appeals process (in the case of the first embodiment) and improving overall access to time-shifted market valuations (in the case of the second embodiment). (Deanne at Abstract and paras. 2-15, 45-47).
Claim 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Erlanger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0047098; in view of Goddard, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0325839.
As per claim 5,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein determining the set of candidate data records comprises: selecting a first data record from the one or more data records;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) ([0050] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating more details of the master entity index system 50, and in particular the MEI 52 and the data store 54. The MEI 52 may include an addition and updating unit 70, a monitor unit 72 and a query unit 74. The addition and updating unit may add data records about a new entity into the data store, update data records in the data store, or add new rules to the control databases. The monitor unit may permit a user of the master entity index system to view special conditions, known as exceptions, generated by the MEI. For example, a data record that requires a person to view the data record due to an error may be tagged and a message to the operator may be generated. The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
assigning a first quality metric to the first geographic location identifier, which was standardized, identifier based, at least in part, on one or more quality metric rules; and
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 82-84) (The confidence level may be calculated based on a scoring routine, which may use historical data about a particular attribute, such as a last address. Thus, if the current address and past addresses match a query, the confidence level is higher than that for a data record with the same current address but a different old address. The scoring routine may also give a higher confidence level to information more likely to indicate the same entity, such as a social security number. The scoring routine may add the confidence level for each attribute to generate a confidence level value for a candidate record (match score). Once the confidence levels have been calculated, any data records with confidence levels higher than the threshold level are displayed for the user in step 310. The method of matching attributes to data records within the MEI database has been completed.)
marking the first data record for inclusion in the set of candidate data records.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 82-84) (The confidence level may be calculated based on a scoring routine, which may use historical data about a particular attribute, such as a last address. Thus, if the current address and past addresses match a query, the confidence level is higher than that for a data record with the same current address but a different old address. The scoring routine may also give a higher confidence level to information more likely to indicate the same entity, such as a social security number. The scoring routine may add the confidence level for each attribute to generate a confidence level value for a candidate record (match score). Once the confidence levels have been calculated, any data records with confidence levels higher than the threshold level are displayed for the user in step 310. The method of matching attributes to data records within the MEI database has been completed.)
Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger do not explicitly teach, however, Goddard does teach:
determining whether a first geographic location identifier in the first data record can be standardized into a format of the portfolio management database;
(Goddard US20130325839 at paras. 132-135, 331-343) ("[0339] In accordance with the principles of the present invention, an address result contains the following details: street number (or range), street name, city, state, zip code, distance, and a mailbox graphic (to indicate that the result is an address). The mailbox graphic is optional and dependent on the user experience (UX) design of a results screen 710.")
if the first geographic location identifier can be standardized, standardizing the first geographic location identifier according to the format of the portfolio management database;
(Goddard US20130325839 at paras. 132-135, 331-343) ("[0339] In accordance with the principles of the present invention, an address result contains the following details: street number (or range), street name, city, state, zip code, distance, and a mailbox graphic (to indicate that the result is an address). The mailbox graphic is optional and dependent on the user experience (UX) design of a results screen 710.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Goddard, because it allows for an improved system of filtering search query data for context and user intent within a location-based search engine, which improves user experience through improved search categorization, dynamic feedback, and a substantial performance boost. (Goddard at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
As per claim 23,
Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger do not explicitly teach, however, Goddard does teach:
wherein the new standardized format comprises a standardized address.
(Goddard US20130325839 at paras. 132-135, 331-343) ("[0339] In accordance with the principles of the present invention, an address result contains the following details: street number (or range), street name, city, state, zip code, distance, and a mailbox graphic (to indicate that the result is an address). The mailbox graphic is optional and dependent on the user experience (UX) design of a results screen 710.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Goddard, because it allows for an improved system of filtering search query data for context and user intent within a location-based search engine, which improves user experience through improved search categorization, dynamic feedback, and a substantial performance boost. (Goddard at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Erlanger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0047098; in view of Goddard, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0325839; in view of Schwarz, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0229863.
As per claim 6,
Harger explicitly teaches:
assigning a second quality metric to the first geographic location identifier.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 82-84) (The confidence level may be calculated based on a scoring routine, which may use historical data about a particular attribute, such as a last address. Thus, if the current address and past addresses match a query, the confidence level is higher than that for a data record with the same current address but a different old address. The scoring routine may also give a higher confidence level to information more likely to indicate the same entity, such as a social security number. The scoring routine may add the confidence level for each attribute to generate a confidence level value for a candidate record (match score). Once the confidence levels have been calculated, any data records with confidence levels higher than the threshold level are displayed for the user in step 310. The method of matching attributes to data records within the MEI database has been completed.)
Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Goddard do not explicitly teach, however, Schwarz does teach:
wherein determining the set of candidate data records comprises: if the first geographic location identifier cannot be standardized, determining whether the first geographic location identifier is similar to at least one valid geographic location based on one or more geographic location identifier rules;
(Schwarz US20220229863 at paras. 48-51) ([0050] [0050] In another matching example, an exact matching between the values of the particular document and attribute values of the entity may not be required. That is, the matching may allow for incomplete or partially deviating information. For that, the matching may, for example, use a phonetic representation of names and addresses to allow for typos, standardize names and addresses (e.g., “Bob” is roughly equal to “Robert,” “st” is equal to “street,” etc.), and/or compute the edit distance between two values.)
if the first geographic location identifier is not similar, discarding the first data record;
(Schwarz US20220229863 at paras. 48-51) ([0049] In another matching example, a process of data integration system 101 may apply a linkage process on existing records of the central repository and the rows representing the documents, e.g., rows of the table 300, with the aim to find candidate pairs that are likely correspond to matches, while discarding a large number of pairwise comparisons that are very unlikely to correspond to a match. The candidate pairs may be associated with the level of matching. The attributes of the candidate pairs may represent the entity of the database that matches the particular document.)
if the first geographic location identifier is similar, maintaining the geographic location identifier for the first data record; and
(Schwarz US20220229863 at paras. 48-51) ([0050] In another matching example, an exact matching between the values of the particular document and attribute values of the entity may not be required. That is, the matching may allow for incomplete or partially deviating information. For that, the matching may, for example, use a phonetic representation of names and addresses to allow for typos, standardize names and addresses (e.g., “Bob” is roughly equal to “Robert,” “st” is equal to “street,” etc.), and/or compute the edit distance between two values. In this way, not only exact matches for the provided values are found, but also partial matches. Each match (which is an entity in the MDM database) is assigned a matching score or confidence score representing the likelihood that the found MDM entity is actually the one that is described by the input values (coming from the scanned document). This may be advantageous, as it helps to increase the effectiveness of the overall approach, since it allows to compensate for imprecisions which may be introduced in previous steps, be it by OCR errors due to bad scanning quality, or data getting assigned into the wrong attribute since some extra line somewhere on the form makes the text block recognition piece assign values into the wrong attribute, and even allow the MDM entity itself to have issues.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, Goddard, and Schwarz, because it allows for an system with an automated approach to attach documents and data records to a data management system. (Schwarz at Abstract and paras. 1-10).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Erlanger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0047098; in view of Baldwin, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0106778.
As per claim 21,
Harger and Orun do not explicitly teach, however, Bem does teach:
strict matching….
(Bem US20050080772 at paras. 37-40, 48, 53, 57-58, 96-100) ("[0040] The request for ads may also include the query (as entered or parsed), information based on the query (such as geolocation information, whether the query came from an affiliate and an identifier of such an affiliate, and/or as described below, information related to, and/or derived from, the search query), and/or information associated with, or based on, the search results." "[0042] Finally, the search engine 220 may transmit information about the ad and when, where, and/or how the ad was to be rendered (e.g., position, click-through or not, impression time, impression date, size, conversion or not, etc.) back to the ad server 120/210. As described below, such information may include information for determining on what basis the ad way determined relevant (e.g., strict or relaxed match, or exact, phrase, or broad match, etc.)" "[0047] When an online ad is served, one or more parameters may be used to describe how, when, and/or where the ad was served. These parameters are referred to as “serving parameters” below. Serving parameters may include, for example, one or more of the following: features of (including information on) a page on which the ad was served, a search query or search results associated with the serving of the ad, a user characteristic (e.g., their geolocation, the language used by the user, the type of browser used, previous page views, previous behavior)," "[0053] “User information” may include user behavior information and/or user profile information. It may also include a user's geolocation, or an estimation of the user's geolocation." "[0058] The present invention may also be used to adjust a score of an ad depending upon the type of match used to find that the ad was relevant to search query information. For example, the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a more relaxed notion of match may be decreased and/or the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a stricter notion of match may be increased." "[0097] The present invention may be used in a system employing (a) exact matching (where the query must be identical the keyword targeting criterion), (b) phrase matching (where the query must contain the targeting criterion words in the order specified by the phrase) and and/or (c) broad matching (where the query must contain the any one of one or more of the targeting criterion keywords, in any order).")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, and Bem, because it allows for an improved system of identifying ads that are relevant to a search query, even if the search query doesn't contain the exact words targeted by the advertiser and the invention may be used to increase a performance threshold as match confidence decreases, and/or decrease a performance threshold as match confidence increases. (Bem at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
Harger, Orun, Bem, and Erlanger do not explicitly teach, however, Baldwin does teach:
wherein the [strict] matching is directly proportional to a density of an area of the at least one search string.
(Baldwin US20060106778 at paras. 40-42) ("[0040] The query location determination component 340 may parse geographic locations from the user's input query string (e.g., “Seattle Hotels”). While the query string is often irrelevant to the user's actual location, it may limit the information sought to a given location. In operation, at query time, the query location determination component 340 parses the query string for geographic location matches. For example, if a user types in “Hotels Redmond WA”, the query location determination component 340 may extract “Redmond, WA” from the query string and the relevant “location” for the query becomes “Hotels”+“near Redmond Washington”." "[0042] Limits for location extraction from the query string may set in a number of ways. For example, limits may be set based on cities that are near the user's location, such as those locations falling within a one hundred mile radius of the user tile. As another example, limits may be based on the presence of a metropolitan city having a population of more than 100,000 people. These limits help to avoid over-parsing of locations.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, Erlanger, and Baldwin, because it allows for improved system for providing a geographic online search tool that matches geographic locations rather than simply words from a user input query and that will provide results including more complete and accurate information in response to a user query. (Baldwin at Abstract and paras. 3-11).
Claims 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772.
As per claim 24,
Harger explicitly teaches:
A system for outputting result data to an output device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: populate a portfolio management database with one or more data records from at least one database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of: altering at least a portion of the one or more data records, and selecting a portion of the one or more data records based on one or more rules for the portfolio management database;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) ([0050] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating more details of the master entity index system 50, and in particular the MEI 52 and the data store 54. The MEI 52 may include an addition and updating unit 70, a monitor unit 72 and a query unit 74. The addition and updating unit may add data records about a new entity into the data store, update data records in the data store, or add new rules to the control databases. The monitor unit may permit a user of the master entity index system to view special conditions, known as exceptions, generated by the MEI. For example, a data record that requires a person to view the data record due to an error may be tagged and a message to the operator may be generated. The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
receiving at least one search string associated with a search of the portfolio management database;
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) (The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
generating result data based, at least in part, on the searching; and
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51) (The query unit permits a user of the master entity index system to query the MEI about information in the data records or information in the control databases of the MEI and the MEI will return a response to the query including any relevant data records or information.)
outputting result data to a user interface.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 49-51, 79) (the MEI retrieves data records which have data fields that match the attributes provided in the query and displays those located data records for the user.)
Harger does not explicitly teach, however, Orun does teach:
searching the portfolio management database based on the at least one search string,
(Orun US20190114354 at paras. 19-23) ("[0020] The customer resolution engine can cleanse, normalize, and enrich entity data as needed. For example, a traditional match rule for uniquely identifying a person may process the data set that includes “John Smith/1 Main St, San Francisco, Calif. 94105” and “John Smith/11 Main St, San Francisco, Calif. 94105,” and identify two unique people. While a traditional match rule can match addresses by using “fuzzy” strings, in isolation this fuzzy matching can lead to false positives, as there could be two different John Smiths at different addresses. In contrast, the customer resolution engine can more intelligently apply matching rules by incorporating identifier reliability into the matching process. For this example, the customer resolution engine captures and leverages data validation and enrichment attributes as part of the identifier attributes to determine that “11 Main St” is not a valid street address for “San Francisco, Calif. 94105,” infer a data entry error in the street number, and then identify the nearest string or geo-proximity match as a reliable candidate, thereby identifying only one unique John Smith on Main Street in San Francisco.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger and Orun, because it allows for an improved methods and systems for entity identifier clustering based on context scores. (Orun at Abstract and paras. 3-13).
Harger and Orun do not explicitly teach, however, Bem does teach:
wherein one of a broad matching or a strict matching is performed based on a geographic location provided in the at least one search string;
(Bem US20050080772 at paras. 37-40, 48, 53, 57-58, 96-100) ("[0040] The request for ads may also include the query (as entered or parsed), information based on the query (such as geolocation information, whether the query came from an affiliate and an identifier of such an affiliate, and/or as described below, information related to, and/or derived from, the search query), and/or information associated with, or based on, the search results." "[0042] Finally, the search engine 220 may transmit information about the ad and when, where, and/or how the ad was to be rendered (e.g., position, click-through or not, impression time, impression date, size, conversion or not, etc.) back to the ad server 120/210. As described below, such information may include information for determining on what basis the ad way determined relevant (e.g., strict or relaxed match, or exact, phrase, or broad match, etc.)" "[0047] When an online ad is served, one or more parameters may be used to describe how, when, and/or where the ad was served. These parameters are referred to as “serving parameters” below. Serving parameters may include, for example, one or more of the following: features of (including information on) a page on which the ad was served, a search query or search results associated with the serving of the ad, a user characteristic (e.g., their geolocation, the language used by the user, the type of browser used, previous page views, previous behavior)," "[0053] “User information” may include user behavior information and/or user profile information. It may also include a user's geolocation, or an estimation of the user's geolocation." "[0058] The present invention may also be used to adjust a score of an ad depending upon the type of match used to find that the ad was relevant to search query information. For example, the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a more relaxed notion of match may be decreased and/or the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a stricter notion of match may be increased." "[0097] The present invention may be used in a system employing (a) exact matching (where the query must be identical the keyword targeting criterion), (b) phrase matching (where the query must contain the targeting criterion words in the order specified by the phrase) and and/or (c) broad matching (where the query must contain the any one of one or more of the targeting criterion keywords, in any order).")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, and Bem, because it allows for an improved system of identifying ads that are relevant to a search query, even if the search query doesn't contain the exact words targeted by the advertiser and the invention may be used to increase a performance threshold as match confidence decreases, and/or decrease a performance threshold as match confidence increases. (Bem at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
As per claim 26,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein the searching further comprises selecting one or more matching candidates from the portfolio management database, based, at least in part, on a set of business rules.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 65-67) ([0066] Additional queries may be performed by the MEI. The MEI may be queried about the number of entities in the MEI database and the MEI may respond with the number of entities in the MEI database. The MEI may also be queried about the volatility (e.g., the frequency that the data records change) of the data in the data records using a timestamp indicating the last time and number of times that the data has been changed that may be associated with each data record in the MEI. The volatility of the data may indicate fraud if the data about a particular entity is changing frequently. The MEI may also be queried about the past history of changes of the data in the data records so that, for example, the past addresses for a particular entity may be displayed. Once the queries or matches have been completed, the data is returned to the user in step 138. The MEI may then determine whether there are additional queries to be performed in step 140 and return to step 122 if additional queries are going to be conducted. If there are no additional queries, the method ends. Now, an exception processing method that may be executed by the MEI will be described.)
As per claim 28,
Harger explicitly teaches:
wherein the set of business rules includes location characteristics.
(Harger US20080243885 at paras. 65-67) ([0066] Additional queries may be performed by the MEI. The MEI may be queried about the number of entities in the MEI database and the MEI may respond with the number of entities in the MEI database. The MEI may also be queried about the volatility (e.g., the frequency that the data records change) of the data in the data records using a timestamp indicating the last time and number of times that the data has been changed that may be associated with each data record in the MEI. The volatility of the data may indicate fraud if the data about a particular entity is changing frequently. The MEI may also be queried about the past history of changes of the data in the data records so that, for example, the past addresses for a particular entity may be displayed. Once the queries or matches have been completed, the data is returned to the user in step 138. The MEI may then determine whether there are additional queries to be performed in step 140 and return to step 122 if additional queries are going to be conducted. If there are no additional queries, the method ends. Now, an exception processing method that may be executed by the MEI will be described.)
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Deanne, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0257986.
As per claim 25,
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Deanne does teach:
wherein the one or more data records include property valuations and the one or more processors is configured to: compare a current property valuation to a historic property valuation; determine that the current property valuation differs from the historic property valuation; and generate a report of a difference in the current property valuation and the historic property valuation.
(Deanne US20110257986 at paras. 32-39) ([0033] Once the user completes the inputs, the address is sent to the property database. In the first embodiment, a property database maintained by a vendor then looks up the stored values for the property address and returns both a market value and an assessed value for that property to the website calculator (FIGS. 1 to 3), for the “as of date” specified by the taxing authority. In addition, any adjustments to the assessed value, as previously described, are made. [0034] The calculator compares assessed value to market value as shown and returns a response to the user indicating whether the market value is greater than, approximately the same as, or less than, the assessed value. [0035] After comparing assessed value to market value, the first embodiment may display the results to the user in a variety of formats: by showing both assessed and market values, by showing only the difference, by showing metaphorically whether the market value is higher than, the same as, or lower than assessed value, such as by using red, yellow or green stop-lights, or by showing houses of varying sizes. The embodiment may use any combination of written or spoken words, numbers, symbols, or metaphors to convey to the user the market value to assessed value differential. At this point, depending upon the results, a variety of options are possible. FIG. 2 describes the flow path based on output from the calculator.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Deanne, because it allows for an improved method that will maintain a high degree of fairness to both the user, the taxing authority (in the case of the first embodiment), or to an insurance company, the IRS, or others who may depend on the Property Valuation Report (in the case of the second embodiment) and to prevent unfair manipulation of said Property Valuations or other adverse consequences, while at the same time improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the tax appeals process (in the case of the first embodiment) and improving overall access to time-shifted market valuations (in the case of the second embodiment). (Deanne at Abstract and paras. 2-15, 45-47).
As per claim 27,
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Deanne does teach:
wherein the set of business rules includes insurance- specific policy characteristics.
(Deanne US20110257986 at paras. 16, 46-47) (The invention's second embodiment solves a problem relating to discovering past, present and future valuations of specific properties. For example, a property owner might need to determine the value of a personal residence six months in the past to determine the property's value just prior to a catastrophic loss of the home, such as from a fire or hurricane, to make a valid insurance claim.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Deanne, because it allows for an improved method that will maintain a high degree of fairness to both the user, the taxing authority (in the case of the first embodiment), or to an insurance company, the IRS, or others who may depend on the Property Valuation Report (in the case of the second embodiment) and to prevent unfair manipulation of said Property Valuations or other adverse consequences, while at the same time improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the tax appeals process (in the case of the first embodiment) and improving overall access to time-shifted market valuations (in the case of the second embodiment). (Deanne at Abstract and paras. 2-15, 45-47).
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harger, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0243885; in view of Orun, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0114354; in view of Bem, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0080772; in view of Baldwin, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0106778.
As per claim 30,
Harger and Orun do not explicitly teach, however, Bem does teach:
wherein the broad matching or the strict matching is based on the at least one search string...
(Bem US20050080772 at paras. 37-40, 48, 53, 57-58, 96-100) ("[0040] The request for ads may also include the query (as entered or parsed), information based on the query (such as geolocation information, whether the query came from an affiliate and an identifier of such an affiliate, and/or as described below, information related to, and/or derived from, the search query), and/or information associated with, or based on, the search results." "[0042] Finally, the search engine 220 may transmit information about the ad and when, where, and/or how the ad was to be rendered (e.g., position, click-through or not, impression time, impression date, size, conversion or not, etc.) back to the ad server 120/210. As described below, such information may include information for determining on what basis the ad way determined relevant (e.g., strict or relaxed match, or exact, phrase, or broad match, etc.)" "[0047] When an online ad is served, one or more parameters may be used to describe how, when, and/or where the ad was served. These parameters are referred to as “serving parameters” below. Serving parameters may include, for example, one or more of the following: features of (including information on) a page on which the ad was served, a search query or search results associated with the serving of the ad, a user characteristic (e.g., their geolocation, the language used by the user, the type of browser used, previous page views, previous behavior)," "[0053] “User information” may include user behavior information and/or user profile information. It may also include a user's geolocation, or an estimation of the user's geolocation." "[0058] The present invention may also be used to adjust a score of an ad depending upon the type of match used to find that the ad was relevant to search query information. For example, the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a more relaxed notion of match may be decreased and/or the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a stricter notion of match may be increased." "[0097] The present invention may be used in a system employing (a) exact matching (where the query must be identical the keyword targeting criterion), (b) phrase matching (where the query must contain the targeting criterion words in the order specified by the phrase) and and/or (c) broad matching (where the query must contain the any one of one or more of the targeting criterion keywords, in any order).")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, and Bem, because it allows for an improved system of identifying ads that are relevant to a search query, even if the search query doesn't contain the exact words targeted by the advertiser and the invention may be used to increase a performance threshold as match confidence decreases, and/or decrease a performance threshold as match confidence increases. (Bem at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Baldwin does teach:
wherein the [broad] matching or the [strict] matching is based on the at least one search string being a particular geographic location.
(Baldwin US20060106778 at paras. 40-42) ("[0040] The query location determination component 340 may parse geographic locations from the user's input query string (e.g., “Seattle Hotels”). While the query string is often irrelevant to the user's actual location, it may limit the information sought to a given location. In operation, at query time, the query location determination component 340 parses the query string for geographic location matches. For example, if a user types in “Hotels Redmond WA”, the query location determination component 340 may extract “Redmond, WA” from the query string and the relevant “location” for the query becomes “Hotels”+“near Redmond Washington”." "[0042] Limits for location extraction from the query string may set in a number of ways. For example, limits may be set based on cities that are near the user's location, such as those locations falling within a one hundred mile radius of the user tile. As another example, limits may be based on the presence of a metropolitan city having a population of more than 100,000 people. These limits help to avoid over-parsing of locations.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Baldwin, because it allows for improved system for providing a geographic online search tool that matches geographic locations rather than simply words from a user input query and that will provide results including more complete and accurate information in response to a user query. (Baldwin at Abstract and paras. 3-11).
As per claim 31,
Harger and Orun do not explicitly teach, however, Bem does teach:
strict matching….
(Bem US20050080772 at paras. 37-40, 48, 53, 57-58, 96-100) ("[0040] The request for ads may also include the query (as entered or parsed), information based on the query (such as geolocation information, whether the query came from an affiliate and an identifier of such an affiliate, and/or as described below, information related to, and/or derived from, the search query), and/or information associated with, or based on, the search results." "[0042] Finally, the search engine 220 may transmit information about the ad and when, where, and/or how the ad was to be rendered (e.g., position, click-through or not, impression time, impression date, size, conversion or not, etc.) back to the ad server 120/210. As described below, such information may include information for determining on what basis the ad way determined relevant (e.g., strict or relaxed match, or exact, phrase, or broad match, etc.)" "[0047] When an online ad is served, one or more parameters may be used to describe how, when, and/or where the ad was served. These parameters are referred to as “serving parameters” below. Serving parameters may include, for example, one or more of the following: features of (including information on) a page on which the ad was served, a search query or search results associated with the serving of the ad, a user characteristic (e.g., their geolocation, the language used by the user, the type of browser used, previous page views, previous behavior)," "[0053] “User information” may include user behavior information and/or user profile information. It may also include a user's geolocation, or an estimation of the user's geolocation." "[0058] The present invention may also be used to adjust a score of an ad depending upon the type of match used to find that the ad was relevant to search query information. For example, the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a more relaxed notion of match may be decreased and/or the score of an ad determined to be relevant on the basis of a stricter notion of match may be increased." "[0097] The present invention may be used in a system employing (a) exact matching (where the query must be identical the keyword targeting criterion), (b) phrase matching (where the query must contain the targeting criterion words in the order specified by the phrase) and and/or (c) broad matching (where the query must contain the any one of one or more of the targeting criterion keywords, in any order).")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, and Bem, because it allows for an improved system of identifying ads that are relevant to a search query, even if the search query doesn't contain the exact words targeted by the advertiser and the invention may be used to increase a performance threshold as match confidence decreases, and/or decrease a performance threshold as match confidence increases. (Bem at Abstract and paras. 2-10 and 444).
Harger, Orun, and Bem do not explicitly teach, however, Baldwin does teach:
wherein the [strict] matching is directly proportional to a density of an area of the at least one search string.
(Baldwin US20060106778 at paras. 40-42) ("[0040] The query location determination component 340 may parse geographic locations from the user's input query string (e.g., “Seattle Hotels”). While the query string is often irrelevant to the user's actual location, it may limit the information sought to a given location. In operation, at query time, the query location determination component 340 parses the query string for geographic location matches. For example, if a user types in “Hotels Redmond WA”, the query location determination component 340 may extract “Redmond, WA” from the query string and the relevant “location” for the query becomes “Hotels”+“near Redmond Washington”." "[0042] Limits for location extraction from the query string may set in a number of ways. For example, limits may be set based on cities that are near the user's location, such as those locations falling within a one hundred mile radius of the user tile. As another example, limits may be based on the presence of a metropolitan city having a population of more than 100,000 people. These limits help to avoid over-parsing of locations.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harger, Orun, Bem, and Baldwin, because it allows for improved system for providing a geographic online search tool that matches geographic locations rather than simply words from a user input query and that will provide results including more complete and accurate information in response to a user query. (Baldwin at Abstract and paras. 3-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 23 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 101 rejections for now pending claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 21-31, Examiner notes the following:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that the claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management or accounting of portfolio data. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the applicant's argument that the amended features would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that the additional elements of the computer system - “A computer-implemented method for outputting result data to an output device, the method comprising: using at least one hardware processor for extracting code for: populating a portfolio management database with one or more data records from a plurality of databases comprising a product database, a risk engineering database, a claim database, and a customer valuation database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, “portfolio management database”, “user interface”, and “A system for outputting result data to an output device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: populate a portfolio management database with one or more data records from at least one database, wherein populating the portfolio management database comprises at least one of:”, to perform the “altering”, “selecting”, “searching”, “generating”, and “outputting”, in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims at issue covers management or accounting of portfolio data. The claims invoke the management or accounting of portfolio data merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a certain method of organizing human activity or mental process or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Additionally, Applicant argues that “The amended claims implement specific technical solutions that go well beyond generic computer implementation. For example, claim 1 as amended recites "searching the portfolio management database using the at least one search string, wherein a degree of stringency of a geographic location match of the at least one search string is based on a content of the at least one search string." This technical approach recognizes that "New York is a densely populated area, and therefore appl[ies] a more focused geographic location match to capture industries and businesses that have similar location identifiers due to there being more potential matching candidates”.
Examiner notes that the stated problems in the insurance industry related to location data accuracy, standardization, and quality assessment is not a technical problem, and the claimed solution is not a technical solution. In the claim, the solution of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data for management or accounting of portfolio data is part of the abstract idea, as it is merely involves data collection, manipulation, and analysis and the process could be completed manually or mentally or by pen and paper.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 103 rejections for now pending claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 21-31, Examiner notes that the arguments are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is available for review on Form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT J HASBROUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-3109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Christine Tran can be reached on 571-272-8103. 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.
/MERRITT J HASBROUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights