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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 11/09/2023 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. No claims have been amended. The rejection of claims 1-18 is hereby made non-final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected claims 1-18 with traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1–18 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.
In sum, claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106.04 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a system (claims 1-16) and a non-transitory machine readable medium (claims 17 and 18) (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of rule based loan validation by:
Retriev[ing] the loan data from the first data store;
Retriev[ing] the set of configurable business rules from the second data store;
Select[ing] one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data;
Execut[ng] the selected one or more configurable business rules using the loan data as input to validate the loan data;
Generat[ing] a loan validation result; and
Updat[ing] one or more configurable business rules in the set of configurable business rules via the second data store with minimal or no interruptions to operations of the LVT.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving a user’s electronic credentials to verify a user account and in the event of failure, verifying the user account using micro deposits into the user account).
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor,” and “loan validator tool system” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0037] of the specification). Independent claim 17 is nearly identical to independent claim 1 and so the analysis for claim 1 also applies to claim 17.
Dependent claims 2–16 and 18 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ul Karimi et al (US 2018/0011912) in view of Agee (US 2012/0259752).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors; a first data store storing loan data including commercial and industrial (C&I) loan data, commercial real estate (CRE) loan data, off-balance sheet (OBS) loan data, commitment to issue a commitment (CTC) loan data, or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph [0110] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein system architecture 100 for managing and operating social service programs can be utilized across a variety of sectors including housing services, unemployment benefits, health benefits, old-age benefits, family benefits, financial loans, subsidy services, tax exemption, credit rating, and the like); a set of configurable business rules stored in a second data store (see at least paragraph [0054] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the business rules are fully configurable via the configurable data integration platform and utilize authentic data accessed at the database); and a loan validator tool (LVT) system executable on the one or more processors (see at least paragraph [0094] to UL Karimi et al) and configured to: retrieve the set of configurable business rules from the second data store (see at least paragraph [0054] to Ul Karimi et al); select one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data; execute the selected one or more configurable business rules using the loan data as input to validate the loan data (see at least paragraph [0061] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein processing rules process 400 describes a process of determining business rules of a business rule engine, and applying the business rules to applicant data. At step 402, processing circuitry is configured to determine business rules of a business rule engine. The business rules are fully configurable via the configurable data integration platform and utilize authentic data accessed at the database); generate a loan validation result (see at least paragraph [0095] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the data source data is loaded into an ASIS staging environment when the data source has passed all validation rules for data loads); and update one or more configurable business rules in the set of configurable business rules (see at least paragraph [0062] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein, the business rule can be reconfigured to accommodate the rule change) via the second data store with minimal or no interruptions to operations of the LVT (see at least paragraph [0062] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the application is processing an online request and the SSP administrator modifies an attribute, then the modified data is picked up by the business rules. Hence, the business rules are altered in real time).
Ul Karimi et al does not appear to explicitly disclose retrieving the loan data from the first data store, wherein the loan data is commercial and industrial (C&I) loan data, commercial real estate (CRE) loan data, off-balance sheet (OBS) loan data, commitment to issue a commitment (CTC).
However, Agee discloses financial audit risk tracking systems and methods, further comprising retrieving the loan data from the first data store, wherein the loan data is commercial and industrial (C&I) loan data, commercial real estate (CRE) loan data, off-balance sheet (OBS) loan data, commitment to issue a commitment (CTC) (see at least paragraph [848] and Table 8 to Agee).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for multi-dynamic data retrieval and data disbursement, as disclosed by Ul Karimi et al and the financial audit risk tracking system and method as taught by Agee, in order to more accurately determine and assign risk to commercial loan products (see at least paragraph [0007] to Agee) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each configurable business rule in the set of configurable business rules includes executable code (see at least paragraph [0129] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein functions, processes and algorithms described herein may be performed in hardware or software executed by hardware, including computer processors and/or programmable circuits configured to execute program code and/or computer instructions to execute the functions, processes and algorithms described herein).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the executable code comprises a structured query language (SQL) code configured to use the loan data as input and to output a validation metric (see at least paragraph [0044] to Ul Karimi, wherein an eligibility engine subcomponent may be implemented in SQL).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the validation metric comprises a pass metric or fail metric (see at least paragraph [0095] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the data source data is loaded into an ASIS staging environment when the data source has passed all validation rules for data loads).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the validation result comprises a pass percentage of the loan data that includes the pass metric, a fail percentage of the loan data that includes the fail metric, or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph [0101] to Ul Karimi et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the LVT system comprises an editor configured to edit the set of configurable business rules (see at least paragraph [0054] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the business rules are fully configurable via the configurable data integration platform and utilize authentic data accessed at the database. Attributes and values received from one or more authenticated sources, via the integration layer are used to configure business rules).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the editor comprises a table view of a configurable business rule in the set of configurable business rules, the table view comprising columns that define the configurable business rule (see at least paragraph [0054] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the business rules are fully configurable via the configurable data integration platform…accessed at the database).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the columns comprise a rule ID column uniquely identifying the configurable business rule, a SQL column for storing executable SQL code, and an "is active" column comprising a flag to denote if the configurable business rule is to be executed during the execution of the selected one or more configurable business rules or if the configurable business rule is to be not executed during the execution of the selected one or more configurable business rules (see at least paragraph [0044] to Ul Karimi, wherein an eligibility engine subcomponent may be implemented in SQL).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of configurable business rules are updatable in the second data store without interruption to operations of the LVT system based on the "is active" column, or with minimal interruption to operations of the LVT system based on the "is active" column (see at least paragraph [0077] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the servers may implement a model based on active status).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the LVT system is configured to load the configurable business rule into a memory when retrieving the set of configurable business rules from the second data store only when the flag is set to active (see at least paragraph [0077] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the servers may implement a model based on active status).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and the second data store are included in a data store cluster configured to load balance data requests based on a number of the data requests from the LVT system (see at least paragraph [0011] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the system clusters data according to a load balancing model and paragraph [0141] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the system accesses and manipulates data in response to a request from a remote device).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the system of claim 11,comprising a data extract server coupled to the data store cluster, wherein the data extract server is configured to extract, transform, and load (ETL) the loan data into the first data store from one or more external data stores storing the loan data, wherein the one or more external data stores are included in a system of record (SOR) configured as an authoritative data source for the loan data (see at least paragraph [0072] to Ul Karimi et al, wherein the processing circuitry can be configured to perform bulk and parallel processing utilizing ETL processing. In certain aspects, the bulk and parallel processing capabilities include a hybrid implementation of extract, transform, load (ETL) processing and database engine processing).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the characteristic of the retrieved loan data comprise a tag denoting a type of loan data, a keyword representative of the type of loan data, or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph [0010] to UL Karimi et al, wherein the configurable rules can enhance data retrieval timing and performance by targeting specific end-user services associated with specific user data attributes).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the LVT system is further configured to generate a regulatory report based on the loan validation result (see at least paragraph [0853] to Agee, wherein a loan application register is maintained by lenders as a mechanism to report loan application data).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the regulatory report comprises a Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) Regulatory Report comprising a FR Y-14Q Schedule H.1, FR Y-14Q Schedule H.2, FR Y-9C, FR Y-14Q/M, FR Y-1, FR 2052a FFIEC 031, FF[EC 101, FF[EC 009, or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph [0853] to Agee, wherein the Regulation Model begins with a comprehensive formal title listing of the government's regulatory code that governs the operation of the bank, and the code's corresponding references to the USC and CFR code sections in including FRB regulatory guidelines in at least table 9).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the LVT system is further configured to interface with a regulatory system to upload the regulatory report automatically into the regulatory system after the regulatory report is generated (see at least paragraph [0855] to Agee, wherein each regulation statement is mapped to one or more control activities).
Claims 17 and 18 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627