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 Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration.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. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. The rejection of claims 1-18 is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 but does not find said arguments to be persuasive. The examiner submits that the pending claims recited at least a system and non-transitory computer readable medium for rule based loan validation, which both fall into one of the four statutory categories. The claims must then qualify as patent eligible subject matter. i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). See MPEP § 2106.04 for detailed information on the judicial exceptions. Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012). However, the Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction."). Accordingly, the Court has said that integration of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into a practical application may be eligible for patent protection. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (explaining that "in applying the §101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more" (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89, 110 USPQ2d at 1971) and stating that Mayo "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts"); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d at 1969, 1971. The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test, is discussed in further detail in subsection III, below. The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). Id. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The Supreme Court has described the second part of the test as the "search for an 'inventive concept'". Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The examiner does agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be established and considered in the determination of patent eligibility under 35 USC 101.
In considering the pending claims, the examiner submits the following: Claim 1 of the pending application (as well as the claims that depend therefrom) recite: A system, comprising: one or more processors; a first data store comprising a database system 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; a set of configurable business rules stored in a second data store, wherein the set of configurable business rules comprise executable software code; and a loan validator tool (LVT) system executable on the one or more processors and configured to: retrieve the loan data from the first data store, the loan data comprising records having a plurality of fields stored in one or more relational tables; retrieve the set of configurable business rules from the second data store; select one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data including keyword frequency of one or more keywords occurring in the loan data; execute the selected one or more configurable business rules using the loan data as input to validate the loan data; generate a loan validation result; and update one or more configurable business rules in the set of configurable business rules stored in the second data store while concurrently executing the selected one or more configurable business rules with minimal or no interruptions to operations of the LVT by automatically reloading the updated business rules into a random access memory included in the second data store based on a database trigger. The language of at least claim 1 is reproduced above, with the significant structural language and method steps emboldened. In considering the claims, the examiner has taken into consideration the state of the art at the time of filing consistent with Applicant’s specification, as originally filed. The examiner further submits that the language of the computer readable storage medium as recited in independent claim 17, recites language that is similar to that recited in the system of claim 1, so that the 101 analysis as applied to claim 1, similarly applies to claim 17, at least based on its resemblance to claim 1. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, it is clear that the pending claim 1 and similarly recited independent claim 17 falls into the judicial exception category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The aforementioned categorization is evidenced at least in the steps of: “execut[ing] the selected one or more configurable business rules using the loan data as input to validate the loan data” (claim 1 of the pending application) which constitutes a commercial interaction and therefore places the pending claim into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. 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. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In the aforementioned claims, the loan validator tool acts as an intermediary between the user and the merchant to effectuate a loan approval, making it a fundamental economic practice, that is being implemented on a computer processor. An example that would be considered analogous to the pending claims would be manual processing of a loan approval, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012). The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), MPEP 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
In determining if the language of the pending claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner identifies the method steps and the system components of exemplary claim 1, which are provided in bold below:
Claim 1. : A system, comprising: one or more processors; a first data store comprising a database system 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; a set of configurable business rules stored in a second data store, wherein the set of configurable business rules comprise executable software code; and a loan validator tool (LVT) system executable on the one or more processors and configured to: retrieve the loan data from the first data store, the loan data comprising records having a plurality of fields stored in one or more relational tables; retrieve the set of configurable business rules from the second data store; select one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data including keyword frequency of one or more keywords occurring in the loan data; execute the selected one or more configurable business rules using the loan data as input to validate the loan data; generate a loan validation result; and update one or more configurable business rules in the set of configurable business rules stored in the second data store while concurrently executing the selected one or more configurable business rules with minimal or no interruptions to operations of the LVT by automatically reloading the updated business rules into a random access memory included in the second data store based on a database trigger.
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Applicant’s specification fails to identify or explicitly disclose any improvement in the function of a computer or any other technology or technological field, as evidenced by the aforementioned citations from Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification merely combines generic, well understood computing elements in the performance of the well understood, routine, and conventional steps. Claims 2-16 and 18 fail to cure the deficiencies under 35 USC 101 of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reasoning as applied to independent claim 1, and similarly recited claim 17.
For the aforementioned reasoning, the claims are found to be ineligible, and the rejection of the pending claims in view of 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, addressing the newly amended claim language.
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;
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;
Concurrently executing the selected one or more configurable business rules; and
Automatically reloading the updated business rules into a random access memory included in the second data store based on a database trigger.
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), and further in view of Visvanathan (US 2015/0293764).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors; a first data store comprising a database system (see at least paragraph [0054]to Karimi et al) 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, wherein the set of configurable business rules comprise executable software code (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) the loan data comprising records having a plurality of fields stored in one or more relational tables (see at least paragraph [0053] to Agee, wherein the document is stored in a relational database); select one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data including keyword frequency of one or more keywords occurring in the loan data (see at least paragraph [0311] to Agee, wherein there is a keyword search); 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) stored in 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); the loan data comprising records having a plurality of fields stored in one or more relational tables; and one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data including keyword frequency of one or more keywords occurring in the loan data.
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 loan data comprising records having a plurality of fields stored in one or more relational tables (see at least paragraph [0053] to Agee, wherein the document is stored in a relational database); and one or more configurable business rules from the set of configurable business rules based on a characteristic of the retrieved loan data including keyword frequency of one or more keywords occurring in the loan data (see at least paragraph [0311] to Agee, wherein there is a keyword search).
The previously applied prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose concurrently executing the selected one or more configurable business rules by automatically reloading the updated business rules into a random access memory included in the second data store based on the database trigger.
However, Visvanathan discloses a method and system to compose and execute business rules, further comprising concurrently executing the selected one or more configurable business rules by automatically reloading the updated business rules into a random access memory included in the second data store based on the database trigger (see at least paragraph [0042] to Visvanathan).
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, further in view of the method and system to compose and execute business rules, as taught by Visvanathan, 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights