Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 8/8/2025.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 and 17-21 are currently amended.
Claim 8, 9 and 16 were previously presented.
Claim 1 was cancelled.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending and addressed below.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-21 are directed to a system, a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…editing of attributes, retrieve attributes for editing, and save edited attributes; generate at least one first attribute score for at least one first attribute by: receiving an indication of the at least one first attribute, wherein the at least one first attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identifying a credit data attribute formula expression based on the indication of the at least one first attribute; generating a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources to the credit data attribute formula expression, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources stores its data in a different format, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a corresponding set of filters that is responsive to the format of its associated data source; extracting data associated with the type of credit data from each data source of the plurality of data sources according to the corresponding set of filters for each data source of the plurality of data sources; and applying, using the deployment package, the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression to generate the at least one first attribute score for the at least one first attribute; receive an indication of an edit to the at least one first attribute; save the edited at least one first attribute; and generate at least one second attribute score for the edited at least one first attribute”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations i.e. processing and generating the scores for the attribute and the edited attribute) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more processors, a first user interface, an attribute repository, and a second user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…display…to edit…attributes, retrieve…attributes, and save…edited attributes; generate…first attribute score; receiving… an indication of the at least one first attribute; identifying… a credit data attribute formula expression; generating… a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources…; extracting… data associated with the type of credit data …; and applying … the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression…; receive…an indication of an edit…; save …the edited attribute; and generate …at least one second attribute score”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more processors, the first user interface, the attribute repository, and the second user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…display…to edit…attributes, retrieve…attributes, and save…edited attributes; generate…first attribute score; receiving… an indication of the at least one first attribute; identifying… a credit data attribute formula expression; generating… a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources…; extracting… data associated with the type of credit data …; and applying … the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression…; receive…an indication of an edit…; save …the edited attribute; and generate …at least one second attribute score”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 2. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 17. Therefore, claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 10 and 17. Claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors, the second user interface, each set of filters and the computing device included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20 and 21 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “display… the extracted data…” (claims 3, 11 and 18); “display… information… in a format…” (claims 4, 12 and 20); “display…functions and operations associated with the sets of filters” (claims 6 and 14); “calculate…a data score…” (claims 7 and 21), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors, the second user interface, each set of filters and the computing device included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20 and 21 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “display… the extracted data…” (claims 3, 11 and 18); “display… information… in a format…” (claims 4, 12 and 20); “display…functions and operations associated with the sets of filters” (claims 6 and 14); “calculate…a data score…” (claims 7 and 21), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2 of the current application is rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,901 (hereinafter, the “’901 Patent”).
Both claim 2 of the present application and claim 9 in the ‘901 Patent are directed to a system for generating attributes, the system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer storage comprising code executable by the one or more processors, the executable code causing the one or more processors to: receive, via a user interface, an indication of at least one attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identify a credit data attribute formula expression based on the indication of the at least one attribute; generate a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources to the credit data attribute formula expression, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources stores its data in a different format, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a corresponding set of filters that is responsive to the format of its associated data source; extract data associated with the type of credit data from each data source of the plurality of data sources according to the corresponding set of filters for each data source of the plurality of data sources; and apply, using the deployment package, the extracted data to the credit data formula expression to generate at least one attribute score for the at least one attribute.
Thus, claim 9 of the ‘901 Patent teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. However, claim 9 of the ‘901 Patent also contains additional limitations not found in claim 2 of the instant application, such as those of limitations “…displaying, via the validation user interface, dependencies between the attribute and a plurality of filters, wherein a first filter of the plurality of filters is configured to extract data from a first data source having a first data format by mapping one or more data fields in the first data source to the type of credit data and a second filter of the plurality of filters is configured to extract data from a second data source having a second data format by mapping one or more data fields in the second data source to the type of credit data; generating a deployment package by compiling the credit data attribute formula expression into computer executable code; and deploying the deployment package to a computing system, wherein the deployment package includes one or more computer instructions that when executed, generates an attribute value by at least: extracting a subset of data associated with the attribute from the first data source in accordance with the first filter; and applying the subset of data associated with the attribute from the first data source to the credit data attribute formula expression”. Accordingly, claim 9 of the ‘901 application is directed to a species of claim 2 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)).
Claim 2 of the current application is also rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,449 (hereinafter, the “’449 Patent”). Although the two claims are not identical to one another, they are not patentably distinct, as explained below.
Claim 1 of the ‘449 Patent teaches a system for generating attributes, the system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer storage comprising code executable by the one or more processors, the executable code causing the one or more processors to: receive, via a user interface, a user selection of at least one attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identify a credit data attribute formula expression based on the received user selection; extract a subset of first data from a first data source in accordance with a first filter and extract a subset of second data from a second data source in accordance with a second filter, wherein the first data source stores first data associated with the type of credit data in a first format and the second data source stores second data associated with the type of credit data in a second format different from the first format; and generate a deployment package that applies the extracted subsets of data to the credit data attribute formula expression to generate at least one attribute score for the at least one attribute, wherein the deployment package is deployed to a computer system, and wherein the computer system is configured to generate the at least one attribute score based on one or more computer instructions included within the deployment package. Thus, claim 1 of the ‘449 Patent teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 2 of the present application.
However, claim 1 of the ‘449 Patent has additional limitations not found in claim 2 of the present application, such as wherein the deployment package is deployed to a computer system, and wherein the computer system is configured to generate the at least one attribute score based on one or more computer instructions included within the deployment package. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ‘449 Patent is a species of claim 2 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)).
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 2-21 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant submits that the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception…and the claimed features are integrated into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-8).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that the claim recites “…editing of attributes, retrieve attributes for editing, and save edited attributes; generate at least one first attribute score for at least one first attribute by: receiving an indication of the at least one first attribute, wherein the at least one first attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identifying a credit data attribute formula expression based on the indication of the at least one first attribute; generating a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources to the credit data attribute formula expression, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources stores its data in a different format, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a corresponding set of filters that is responsive to the format of its associated data source; extracting data associated with the type of credit data from each data source of the plurality of data sources according to the corresponding set of filters for each data source of the plurality of data sources; and applying, using the deployment package, the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression to generate the at least one first attribute score for the at least one first attribute; receive an indication of an edit to the at least one first attribute; save the edited at least one first attribute; and generate at least one second attribute score for the edited at least one first attribute”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations i.e. processing and generating the scores for the attribute and the edited attribute) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more processors, a first user interface, an attribute repository, and a second user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…display…to edit…attributes, retrieve…attributes, and save…edited attributes; generate…first attribute score; receiving… an indication of the at least one first attribute; identifying… a credit data attribute formula expression; generating… a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources…; extracting… data associated with the type of credit data …; and applying … the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression…; receive…an indication of an edit…; save …the edited attribute; and generate …at least one second attribute score”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, According to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…editing of attributes, retrieve attributes for editing, and save edited attributes; generate at least one first attribute score for at least one first attribute by: receiving an indication of the at least one first attribute, wherein the at least one first attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identifying a credit data attribute formula expression based on the indication of the at least one first attribute; generating a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources to the credit data attribute formula expression, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources stores its data in a different format, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a corresponding set of filters that is responsive to the format of its associated data source; extracting data associated with the type of credit data from each data source of the plurality of data sources according to the corresponding set of filters for each data source of the plurality of data sources; and applying, using the deployment package, the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression to generate the at least one first attribute score for the at least one first attribute; receive an indication of an edit to the at least one first attribute; save the edited at least one first attribute; and generate at least one second attribute score for the edited at least one first attribute) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…editing of attributes, retrieve attributes for editing, and save edited attributes; generate at least one first attribute score for at least one first attribute by: receiving an indication of the at least one first attribute, wherein the at least one first attribute that relates to a type of credit data; identifying a credit data attribute formula expression based on the indication of the at least one first attribute; generating a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources to the credit data attribute formula expression, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources stores its data in a different format, wherein each data source of the plurality of data sources is associated with a corresponding set of filters that is responsive to the format of its associated data source; extracting data associated with the type of credit data from each data source of the plurality of data sources according to the corresponding set of filters for each data source of the plurality of data sources; and applying, using the deployment package, the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression to generate the at least one first attribute score for the at least one first attribute; receive an indication of an edit to the at least one first attribute; save the edited at least one first attribute; and generate at least one second attribute score for the edited at least one first attribute) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations i.e. processing and generating the scores for the attribute and the edited attribute) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, the amended claims are directed to a judicial exception…and the claimed features of claim 2 are not integrated into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-8). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant submits that rather than being directed to any abstract idea, the present claims relate to an improvement in computer-related technology and are thus patent eligible … In particular the present disclosure enables improved ability for users of the computer system to define and edit attributes using a first user interface and test the defined and/or edited attributes and corresponding filters associated with different data sources having different data formats by generating an attribute score using a generated deployment package via a second user interface…” (Please see the remarks on pages 8-9).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more processors, the first user interface, the attribute repository, and the second user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…display…to edit…attributes, retrieve…attributes, and save…edited attributes; generate…first attribute score; receiving… an indication of the at least one first attribute; identifying… a credit data attribute formula expression; generating… a deployment package that applies extracted data from a plurality of data sources…; extracting… data associated with the type of credit data …; and applying … the extracted data to the credit data attribute formula expression…; receive…an indication of an edit…; save …the edited attribute; and generate …at least one second attribute score”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, these functions are improvement in a business/financial problem to a business/financial solution in the process of generating and evaluating attributes. These business/financial solutions are also one of the business solutions that the Applicant’s invention tried to solve as well (Please see the Applicant’s specification in paragraphs 2-6). Thus, there are no improvement in computer-related technology in the Applicant’s claims. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Previous Double Patenting
Per Applicant’s requested, the double patenting rejection will be held in abeyance until the claims of the instant application are otherwise in condition for allowance.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN C. NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694