DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in reply to the remarks and/or arguments for Application 18/227,678 filed on 28 July 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 July 2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, Representative method claim 1 is directed towards facilitating data analysis through data enhancement and integration involving the collection and combining of data (global and local) from various sources. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions for performing an existing economic/commercial practice and/or concept of collecting/receiving (e.g., global/local data, user input), transmitting (e.g., use recommendation), and storing (updating) data/information associated with the performance of a transaction (e.g., decision-making, pricing, risk assessment), but for the recitation of computer-related components, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; advertising; marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in step 2A prong one.
Representative method claim 1 recites:
“aggregating, by a global data enhancing engine, a plurality of global data sources and a plurality of local data sources;
determining, by the global data enhancing engine, responsive to a user input on an interactive worksheet, a recommended use case;
determining, by the global data enhancing engine, based on the recommended use case and based on the plurality of global data sources and the plurality of local data sources, a recommendation for at least one local data source in the plurality of local data sources;
updating, by the global data enhancing engine, responsive to a user acceptance of the recommendation, the interactive worksheet based on the at least one local data source”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “global data enhancing engine”, “interactive worksheet”, represent the use of a computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions for performing an existing economic/commercial practice and/or concept of collecting/receiving (e.g., global/local data, user input), transmitting (e.g., use recommendation), and storing (updating) data/information associated with the performance of a transaction (e.g., decision-making, pricing, risk assessment).
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions for performing an existing economic/commercial practice and/or concept of collecting/receiving (e.g., global/local data, user input), transmitting (e.g., use recommendation), and storing (updating) data/information associated with the performance of a transaction (e.g., decision-making, pricing, risk assessment) using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 10 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer program product (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 10 accordingly.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 16 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 16 accordingly.
In addition, claim 16 is further rejected as being non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claim recites in the preamble “a computer readable storage medium” and is unclear as to whether the claimed computer readable storage medium is in the form of transitory or non-transitory. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant should add the limitation "non-transitory" to said storage medium so as to read non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Friend et al., US 2024/0126813 A1 (“Friend”), in view of Billman et al., US 2014/0257862 A1 (“Billman”), further in view of Wang et al., US 11,367,142 B1 (“Wang”).
Re Claim 1: Friend discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
aggregating, by a global data enhancing engine, a plurality of global data sources and a plurality of local data sources; (FIG. 4 {406}: “initiating a global graph search to identify the one or more second data objects, the global graph search performed using a plurality of local data managers to respectively search a plurality of local data tables”; [0003] “… directed to a global data management framework that can provide a unified interface for interacting with data stored and managed using multiple different local data managers. The global data management framework can receive queries for data that spans multiple different local data managers, automatically query the local data managers, and compile results from the different data managers”; [0012] “… method includes initiating a global graph search to identify the one or more second data objects, the global graph search performed using a plurality of local data managers to respectively search a plurality of local data tables”)
determining, by the global data enhancing engine, responsive to a user input on an interactive worksheet, a recommended use case; ([0098] “… the method 400 can include receiving a request to provide a viewport for interaction with one or more second data objects related to the first data object. For instance, a viewport (e.g., viewport 130) can be rendered within a graphical user interface ( e.g., on a display device of a client computing system). The viewport can include a single pane or container that presents a unified interface for browsing and editing data”; [0093] “… share input feature 144 can permit sharing of the entire report with an entity. The share input feature 144 can permit sharing of the respective data objects with entities respectively associated with the respective data objects.”; [0094] Upon sharing of the report, the entity with which the report is shared can receive authorization to access the report via a portal to which the entity has access. For instance, global viewport 130" can be provided in an internal dashboard interface. An external dashboard interface can contain a portal for viewing or otherwise interacting with generated report.”)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
determining, by the global data enhancing engine, based on the recommended use case and based on the plurality of global data sources and the plurality of local data sources, a recommendation for at least one local data source in the plurality of local data sources;
Billman makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0003] “… by way of example, the invention has been applied to a method of assessing susceptibility of real property to a natural hazard, such as a wildfire or a flood, using a mobile computing device and a mobile application by collecting and analyzing local data. Mitigation procedures are also provided to property owners to reduce a potential damage caused by a natural hazard. The invention has been also applied to an underwriting process for property insurance policies and to customize the price of an insurance premium according to computed risk levels. The methods and techniques can be applied to a variety of risk assessment systems.”; [0006] “… method includes providing a data processor, and receiving local data related to a predetermined vicinity of the property, which is collected by at least one sensor. The local data includes information related to risk factors including one or more mitigatable items that contribute to a risk of a natural hazard, such as a wildfire. The method also includes computing, using the data processor, a risk level of the wildfire risk associated with the property using the local data …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Billman with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of enhancing greater risk assessment/management accuracy.
Regarding the limitation comprising:
updating, by the global data enhancing engine, responsive to a user acceptance of the recommendation, the interactive worksheet based on the at least one local data source.
Wang makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L4-10: “The model update system 170 is adapted to update and/or retrain models created by the model creation system 150, including loss metric calibration system 152 and loss metric forecast system 154. The updating may be based on additional historical data and/or an evaluation of the outputs or predictions of the loss metric calibration and forecast systems.”; C6 L10-16: “The database update engine 50 may merge all of the different versions of the master database datasets together to keep the database(s) 18 updated. This merging of the different versions may occur continuously, periodically (e.g., every minute, every hour, every day), on demand (e.g., when instructed by a user of database management system 14), or any combination of the preceding.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of ensuring relevancy of data being considered and/or applied.
Re Claim 2: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein updating the interactive worksheet based on the at least one local data source includes updating at least one input field in the interactive worksheet.
Wang makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L4-10: “The model update system 170 is adapted to update and/or retrain models created by the model creation system 150, including loss metric calibration system 152 and loss metric forecast system 154. The updating may be based on additional historical data and/or an evaluation of the outputs or predictions of the loss metric calibration and forecast systems.”; C6 L10-16: “The database update engine 50 may merge all of the different versions of the master database datasets together to keep the database(s) 18 updated. This merging of the different versions may occur continuously, periodically (e.g., every minute, every hour, every day), on demand (e.g., when instructed by a user of database management system 14), or any combination of the preceding.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of ensuring relevancy of data being considered and/or applied.
Re Claim 3: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation comprising:
updating, responsive to a second user input on the updated interactive worksheet, a client profile.
Wang makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L4-10: “The model update system 170 is adapted to update and/or retrain models created by the model creation system 150, including loss metric calibration system 152 and loss metric forecast system 154. The updating may be based on additional historical data and/or an evaluation of the outputs or predictions of the loss metric calibration and forecast systems.”; C6 L10-16: “The database update engine 50 may merge all of the different versions of the master database datasets together to keep the database(s) 18 updated. This merging of the different versions may occur continuously, periodically (e.g., every minute, every hour, every day), on demand (e.g., when instructed by a user of database management system 14), or any combination of the preceding.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of ensuring relevancy of data being considered and/or applied.
Re Claim 4: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Friend further discloses:
augmenting, based on the at least one local data source, a client profile. ([0096] “…. method 400 can include obtaining state data associated with a client session and a first data object. For instance, state data can be obtained that indicates one or more data objects or topics associated with a current or past activity of the client session.”)
Re Claim 5: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 4. Friend further discloses:
presenting, responsive to a user decline of the recommendation, to the user a list of local data sources in the plurality of local data sources; (FIG. 4 {406}: “initiating a global graph search to identify the one or more second data objects, the global graph search performed using a plurality of local data managers to respectively search a plurality of local data tables”)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
updating, responsive to a user selection of a local data source in the list of local data sources, the interactive worksheet based on the selected local data source.
Wang makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L4-10: “The model update system 170 is adapted to update and/or retrain models created by the model creation system 150, including loss metric calibration system 152 and loss metric forecast system 154. The updating may be based on additional historical data and/or an evaluation of the outputs or predictions of the loss metric calibration and forecast systems.”; C6 L10-16: “The database update engine 50 may merge all of the different versions of the master database datasets together to keep the database(s) 18 updated. This merging of the different versions may occur continuously, periodically (e.g., every minute, every hour, every day), on demand (e.g., when instructed by a user of database management system 14), or any combination of the preceding.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of ensuring relevancy of data being considered and/or applied.
Re Claim 6: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Friend further discloses:
wherein determining the recommendation for the at least one local data source is performed using a machine learning model. ([0129] “… the second computing system 40 or the first computing system 20 can train one or more machine-learned models of the model(s) 26 or the model(s) 46 through the use of one or more model trainers 47 and training data 48. The model trainer(s) 47 can train any one of the model(s) 26 or the model(s) 46 using one or more training or learning algorithms.”)
Re Claim 7: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 6. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
providing, responsive to the user accepting the recommendation, a positive feedback to the machine learning model; and
providing, responsive to the user declining the recommendation, a negative feedback to the machine learning model.
Billman makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0102] “homeowner can provide feedback
to the insurance system by clicking an answer choice on the graphical user interface.”; [0079] “user can provide a real-time video feed or images over an area of concern, through a mobile computing device, and interact with professionals. For example, the user can consult with experts, such as professional wildfire fighters, associated with the insurance company or experts in plant species identification to receive their feedback in real-time”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Billman with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of enhancing greater risk assessment/management accuracy.
Re Claim 8: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the global data source includes at least one of a national-level data source and a state-level data source.
Billman makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0052] “In addition, external data related to a risk of a natural hazard associated with a piece of real property can be obtained from other sources. The external data refers to data which is not local data captured by sensors in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As an example, the external data related to a risk of a natural hazard associated with the property can include data layers from geographical information system (GIS), which can contain all types of geographically referenced data at a macro level”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Billman with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of enhancing greater risk assessment/management accuracy.
Re Claim 9: Friend in view of Billman in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein a local data source in the plurality of local data sources includes at least one of a city-level data source, a community-level data source, and a street-level data source.
Billman makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0005] “method includes providing a data processor, receiving local data related to a predetermined vicinity of the property, wherein the local data includes information related to one or more mitigatable items that can be mitigated to reduce a wildfire risk associated with the real property”; [0073] “data can be used by the mobile application on the mobile computing device or by one or more engines of the insurance management system to determine a wildfire risk associated with a particular location”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Billman with the invention of Friend as disclosed above for the motivation of enhancing greater risk assessment/management accuracy.
Re Claim 10: Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 11: Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 12: Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 13: Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 14: Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 15: Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 16: Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 17: Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 18: Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 19: Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 20: Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rakshe et al. (US 10,796,370 B2) discloses a system for automated description and categorization. A back-end application computer server may receive a request along with a descriptive term. A look-up process may be performed based on the descriptive term (and hidden terms) may establish a set of potential pre-determined descriptions. The user may select one of the potential descriptions, and a user identifier may be associated with the request. A series of dynamic information exchanges may
then help assign a category to the user identifier. A partial set of initial request details may be received from a third-party device and the user may adjust and/or add details to create a complete set. A potential value may then be calculated for the request. An indication of the potential value may be transmitted to the user, and information about the user identifier may be transmitted to a user response terminal to facilitate communication between the user response terminal and the user.
Bakalash et al. (US 2002/0029207 A1) discloses data aggregation server for managing a multi-dimensional database and database management system having data aggregation server integrated therein. Improved method and apparatus for aggregating data elements in multidimensional databases (MDDB). In one aspect of the present invention, the apparatus is realized in the form of a high-performance stand-alone (i.e. external) aggregation server which can be plugged-into conventional OLAP systems to achieve significant improvements in system performance. In accordance with the principles of the present invention, the stand-alone aggregation server contains
a scalable MDDB and a high-performance aggregation engine that are integrated into the modular architecture of the aggregation server. The stand-alone aggregation server of the present invention can uniformly distribute data elements among a plurality of processors, for balanced loading and processing, and therefore is highly scalable. The standalone aggregation server of the present invention can be used to realize (i) an improved MDDB for supporting on-line analytical processing (OLAP) operations, (ii) an improved Internet URL Directory for supporting on-line information searching operations by Web-enabled client machines, as well as (iii) diverse types of MDDB-based
systems for supporting real-time control of processes in response to complex states of information reflected in the MDDB. In another aspect of the present invention, the apparatus is integrated within a database management system (DBMS). The improved DBMS can be used to realize achieving a significant increase in system performance (e.g. deceased access/search time), user flexibility and ease of use. The improved DBMS system of the present invention can be used to realize an improved Data Warehouse for supporting on-line analytical processing (OLAP) operations or to realize an improved informational database system, operational database system, or the like.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights