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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 18 have been amended. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection towards claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 is/are withdrawn as claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Step 2A, Prong One - Claims do not Recites a Judicial Exception The Office Action asserted that claim 1 falls within the 'Mental Process' grouping of abstract ideas." (Office Action, at page 2).
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Amended claim 1, under its broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of providing a technology capable of evaluating social value of an evaluation target company reflecting its actual corporate activities. According to MPEP§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), "A7 Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See ... SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that 'could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind')." (Emphasis added).
Amended claim 1 recites the limitations of "displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result" as recited by claim 1." (Emphasis added). At least the above limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform "displaying evaluation result having intensity information on a graphical user interface." Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of a mental process as asserted in the Office Action.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes as amended “displaying the evaluation result” is a step that can be performed by the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. The human mind with aid of pencil and paper can display (i.e., draw) the evaluation result in which color intensities of the evaluation result can be depicted with the aid of pencil and paper. The claimed graphical user interface is noted to be claim element(s) that does not preclude the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. Therefore, the aforementioned step as amended does fall into the grouping of mental processes. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process, amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g.,"displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result").
According to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), "[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." (Emphasis added).
Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), amended claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of providing a technology capable of evaluating social value of an evaluation target company reflecting its actual corporate activities. For example, amended claim 1 recites limitations of "displaving the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result" as recited by claim 1." (Emphasis added). Such feature help to visually indicate how the evaluation result may be incorporated.
Additionally, these data analysis steps are different from "a claim to 'collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A." (id.; 48 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016); emphasis added). Contrarily to Electric Power Group, amended claim 1 recites detailed features (e.g., "displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result" etc.), which are beyond a high-level of generality.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) further explains that "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology . . . In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words,the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.' When performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100." (Emphasis added). Applying the rules of MPEP here, claim 1 recites limitations of "displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result".
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea even if one were to assume that claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the purported improvement lies within improving the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that “displaying the evaluation result in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the evaluation result” is noted to be an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The use of, “a graphical user interface”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, “a graphical user interface”, even in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, with respect to an improvement to the technical field, the examiner, respectfully notes that “displaying the evaluation result in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the evaluation result” is an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not to the technical field as again the technology claimed i.e., “a graphical user interface”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it recites additional elements that are "unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." (Section III(B) of 2019 PEG.).
According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome" and "the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception." (Emphasis added).
Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a), amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of providing a technology capable of evaluating social value of an evaluation target company reflecting its actual corporate activities. For example, claim 1 recites "displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate intensity of the evaluation result" as recited by claim 1." (Emphasis added).
These features are neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the field.
Further, according to MPEP § 2106.05, "[l]imitations that the courts have found toqualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:... Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Ebel Process Co. v. Mnn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b))." (MPEP § 2106.05). Similarly, here, claim 1 recites and uses a particular machine, such as a graphical user interface. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 1 qualifies as "significantly more".
In summary, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, because amended claim 1 recites features that do not fall into one of the enumerated groupings set forth in the 2019 PEG; and/or, because the features are integrated into a practical application; and/or, alternatively because amended claim 1 recites additional elements that are not well- understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of amended claim 1 and its dependent claims. Similar arguments also apply to amended claims6 and 7 and respective dependent claims.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejections is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional element is as identified, i.e., “a graphical user interface”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception “displaying the evaluation result” and this additional element is noted to be use of a generic computer component and/or merely invoke use of the additional elements (i.e., GUI) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. This additional element is not sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a machine, method, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A social value evaluation
retrieving first textual data of an evaluation target entity on nonmonetary social values ;
generating a feature value from the first textual data of the evaluation target entity;
retrieving, as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity
determining a relevance data between the feature value and the second textual data as an evaluation result; and
displaying the evaluation result
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 7 includes retrieving first textual data of an evaluation target entity on nonmonetary social values; generating a feature value from the first textual data of the evaluation target entity; retrieving as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity; determining a relevance data between the feature value and the second textual data as an evaluation result; and displaying in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the evaluation result, thus, the claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 7, i.e., device w/ processor, databases, and transmitting ... over a network to an application configured to display...; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7, includes retrieving first textual data of an evaluation target entity on nonmonetary social values; generating a feature value from the first textual data of the evaluation target entity; retrieving as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity; determining a relevance data between the feature value and the second textual data as an evaluation result; and displaying in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the evaluation result, thus, encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 7, recite i.e., device w/ processor, databases, transmitting ... over a network to an application configured to display, and displaying... on a graphical user interface. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋[0031]-[0034]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 7 i.e., device w/ processor, databases, transmitting ... over a network to an application configured to display...., and displaying... on a graphical user interface; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 7 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 8-20, claims 2-5 and 8-20 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) - i.e., further features related to social value evaluation and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnemus et al. (US 2006/0200358 A1) in view of Bateman (US 2016/0117774 A1) and Kraut (US 2012/0272186 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Ohnemus discloses social value evaluation device ([0001] - The present invention concerns the rating, benchmarking, manipulation and presentation of extrafinancial information (e.g. economic plus environmental, social, and corporate governance (EESG) data) and more particularly relates to a configurable user interface for presenting complex, multivariate data of a company and for a company in relation to its sector, industry or other benchmark(s) and permitting exploration and access to the EESG performance of a company and [0036]), comprising a processor configured execute operations ([0036]) comprising:
retrieving first textual data of an evaluation target entity on nonmonetary social values from a “first” database ([0079] - Raw data consists of textual information about the indicators such as shown in the above excerpted statement in the example of a Roche accounting report. Quantified data comprise numeric or yes/no values, which can be manually derived from the raw data or from its status if the data is incomplete. In the case of yes/no indicators, a rating can have a predefined value or a calculated value from related indicators. For example, one indicator question might be "Does the company publish information about CO2 emission?," and if the answer to this is "yes" some other indicators about CO2 will count in the rating; otherwise, the rating is accorded the predefined value);
generating a feature value from the first textual data of the evaluation target entity ([0081]-[0083] - The indicators noted above, once a set has been selected for a given rating system, can be accorded a naming convention for access, updates and other manipulation by the software of the rating system. For example: pp_[xx_yy]_{D/O}#, in which pp is the pillar short abbreivation (So=Social, En=Envorinmental, Ec=Economic, CG=Corporate Governance), next is the top-category name (2 letters) followed by the category (again 2 letters) and finally a "D" for driver or "O" for outcome followed by a number);
retrieving, as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity from [the] database ([0079] - Raw data consists of textual information about the indicators such as shown in the above excerpted statement in the example of a Roche accounting report. Quantified data comprise numeric or yes/no values, which can be manually derived from the raw data or from its status if the data is incomplete. In the case of yes/no indicators, a rating can have a predefined value or a calculated value from related indicators. For example, one indicator question might be "Does the company publish information about CO2 emission?," and if the answer to this is "yes" some other indicators about CO2 will count in the rating; otherwise, the rating is accorded the predefined value);
determining a relevance data between the feature value and the second textual data as an evaluation result ([0081]-[0083] - The categories, in turn, are an amalgam of variables, some of which are "outcome" parameters which have values associated with them, and others are "driver" parameters which have a yes/no state setting associated with them. Outcome and driver parameters receive their values from indicators. Driver indicators (always yes/no) are about the policies, management systems and tools employed by the company's management with the intent to improve an issue (which is codified in the rating system as a "category"). Driver indicators measure the company's real intentions and commitments. Outcome indicators (Value or yes/no) measure if the company has successfully achieved an improvement on a particular issue. Outcome indicators measure observable results which provide indications on the company's standing in respect to a specific issue (again, which is included as a "category" in the rating system). The rating system uses a set of indicators to arrive at the integrated ratings described herein. [...] The indicators noted above, once a set has been selected for a given rating system, can be accorded a naming convention for access, updates and other manipulation by the software of the rating system. For example: pp_[xx_yy]_{D/O}#, in which pp is the pillar short abbreivation (So=Social, En=Envorinmental, Ec=Economic, CG=Corporate Governance), next is the top-category name (2 letters) followed by the category (again 2 letters) and finally a "D" for driver or "O" for outcome followed by a number [...] The underlying data that is sought from a company to populate a given indicator will either be relevant or not relevant. If relevant, the question remains whether there is information or not to populate that indicator. If there is relevant information, then the performance value will go up or down depending on the data itself, and the transparency value will go up because there is public reporting of a relevant datum. If the relevant information is not available, there is no change to the performance value as there is no data upon which to base a change, but the transparency value will go down because there is no public reporting of a relevant datum); and
transmitting the evaluation result over a network to an application configured to display the evaluation result (FIG. 14 and [0062] - FIG. 14 shows raw data underlying the integrated rating of a company, which in the illustrated case is "3M." The raw data page identifies for a selected period of time a particular indicator 1410 and an explanation of what it represents, a source 1420 for the value or setting used by the rating system (e.g., a corporate web site), textual data 1430 explaining significance (e.g., whether this indicator bears on one of the value drivers), comments, files, data status and the quality of the information. To the extent that this information can be gathered and reported, it is included in the rating system database and is publicly inspectable at this fundamental level through the raw data page or by exporting to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or the like and [0085]-[ 0086]).
Ohnemus fails to explicitly disclose [concepts of]:
retrieving, as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity from a second database. (emphasis added) [and] [...]
displaying the evaluation result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the evaluation result.
However, in an analogous art, Bateman teaches
retrieving, as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity from a second database. (emphasis added). ([0069]-[0070] - Comprehensive data sets are retrieved in machine readable format reflecting subcomponents of companies (e.g. facilities, subsidiaries, etc.). Once downloaded, computer systems and/or human effort attribute subcomponents to the ultimate parent company. Quantitative data are then aggregated to the same parent company level to populate an ESG database with data elements used throughout Section 2 of this document. 1. Government data sets (e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory, U.S. Department of Labor Strikes Database) and [0868] - In one example, a computer program 1006 is stored on a tangible medium operating in processor 1004. Processor 1004 and memories 1008, 1010, and 1020 may be located a database system 1000. Computer program 1006 may comprise a set of instructions operable to download, by the database system, fund data identifying companies within a fund and proportions of the fund made up by the companies. The database system 1000 downloads environmental, social and governance (ESG) data associated with the companies and creates a relational database associating the ESG data with the companies identified in the fund data. The database system 1000 calculates company ESG scores based on the ESG data associated with the companies and weights the company ESG scores based on the proportions of the fund made up by the companies. The database system 1000 then calculates a fund ESG score for the fund based on the weighted ESG scores for the companies. Other operations performed by the database system are described throughout the specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bateman to the device of Ohnemus to include retrieving, as input, second textual data on a performance result of execution by the evaluation target entity from a second database. (emphasis added).
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bateman to Ohnemus to do so as it provides / allows the performance of the companies in the funds and indexes in other categories by using a variety of specific data (Bateman, [0002] and paragraph preceding [0063] – Section 2.1).
However, in an analogous art, Kraut teaches
displaying the ... result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the ... result ([0038] and [0045] - In one embodiment, a value obtained by computing a function based on all the data values from the charts 410 corresponding to the data point 420 is displayed. For example, the function can be a statistical aggregate function including a sum, product, mean, mode, or median based on the data values. The presentation of the aggregate value can depend on the magnitude and sign (positive or negative) of the value displayed. For example, positive values can be displayed using a particular color, shade, texture, or shape and negative values can be displayed using another color, shade, texture, or shape. Furthermore, the presentation of the value may depend on the magnitude of the value, for example, the size of the text may increase with the magnitude of the value or the intensity or brightness of color or shading of the presentation may change based on the magnitude)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bateman to the evaluation result of Ohnemus in view of Bateman to include displaying the ... result on a graphical user interface in which a plurality of colors is used to illustrate the intensity of the ... result.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kraut to Ohnemus in view of Bateman to do so as it provides / allows differences between the value selected for comparison in the first chart and the corresponding values in other charts are highlighted. (Kraut, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 2;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses wherein the determining further comprises determining the relevance data by calculating similarity between the feature value generated for the second textual data and feature value ([0079] and [0081]-[0083] - 0079] - Raw data consists of textual information about the indicators such as shown in the above excerpted statement in the example of a Roche accounting report. Quantified data comprise numeric or yes/no values, which can be manually derived from the raw data or from its status if the data is incomplete. In the case of yes/no indicators, a rating can have a predefined value or a calculated value from related indicators. For example, one indicator question might be "Does the company publish information about CO2 emission?," and if the answer to this is "yes" some other indicators about CO2 will count in the rating; otherwise, the rating is accorded the predefined value [...] The categories, in turn, are an amalgam of variables, some of which are "outcome" parameters which have values associated with them, and others are "driver" parameters which have a yes/no state setting associated with them. Outcome and driver parameters receive their values from indicators. Driver indicators (always yes/no) are about the policies, management systems and tools employed by the company's management with the intent to improve an issue (which is codified in the rating system as a "category"). Driver indicators measure the company's real intentions and commitments. Outcome indicators (Value or yes/no) measure if the company has successfully achieved an improvement on a particular issue. Outcome indicators measure observable results which provide indications on the company's standing in respect to a specific issue (again, which is included as a "category" in the rating system). The rating system uses a set of indicators to arrive at the integrated ratings described herein [...] ([0081]-[0083] - The indicators noted above, once a set has been selected for a given rating system, can be accorded a naming convention for access, updates and other manipulation by the software of the rating system. For example: pp_[xx_yy]_{D/O}#, in which pp is the pillar short abbreivation (So=Social, En=Envorinmental, Ec=Economic, CG=Corporate Governance), next is the top-category name (2 letters) followed by the category (again 2 letters) and finally a "D" for driver or "O" for outcome followed by a number)
Regarding Claim 3;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses calculating the relevance data between the evaluation result and financial data of the evaluation target entity ([0045] - Briefly, the Economic Performance rating concerns a company's capacity to generate high returns on investments. The rating system utilizes indicators that focus on long term revenue growth and margin improvements through tangible and intangible elements that do not systematically appear in financial statements. This pillar includes financial data and no non-financial data whereas the remaining pillars concern non-financial data, optionally in combination with financial data).
Bateman, additionally, further teaches calculating the relevance data between the evaluation result and financial data of the evaluation target entity ([0018] - In some situations ESG may not include financial performance metrics. However, certain financial accounting data may relate to ESG issues and therefore qualify as ESG data). Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Bateman to Ohnemus in view of Bateman, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 4;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses wherein the transmitting further comprises causing display of information indicating the evaluation result for each social value index of a plurality of social value indices (FIG. 4 and [0045]-[0046] – [...] Each of the pillars is a variable composed of one or more categories of indicators that can be manipulated through weightings, coefficients or mathematics to influence their impact on the numerical grade 322 of the integrated rating. Likewise, each of the pillars and most of the variables used in the rating system comprises a calculation that is based upon values or settings of two or more underlying indicators whose values/settings can be inspected by the user. In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the components that lead to the calculation of each pillar can be displayed by selecting a pillar from the page 300. This causes the hierarchy of parameters that comprise the value of each pillar to be displayed with each successive selection until the basic source of data for a given parameter has been displayed. In this way, a user can "drill down" and inspect the data underlying a rating, and can alter the value or weighted importance of a given indicator for display as a My Rating.).
Regarding Claim 9;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses wherein the relevance data indicates relevance between a social value of the evaluation target entity and a financial value of the evaluation target entity at a time, and the evaluation result includes a change in the relevance data over time ([0008]-[0009] - The indicators can be contained in a database and among them there is a first portion which relate to financial data and a second portion which relate to non-financial data [...] A processor is configured by software to compute each respective integrated rating as a single rating value which is derived by application of a first formula to prescribed ones of plural discrete indicators contained in the database. As noted above, a first portion of the discrete indicators relates to financial data whereas a second portion of the discrete indicators relates to non-financial data and [0036] - By way of overview and introduction, the present invention provides a configurable user interface to a ratings system which presents integrated ratings of financial and non-financial information regarding companies of interest and [0045] - Briefly, the Economic Performance rating concerns a company's capacity to generate high returns on investments. The rating system utilizes indicators that focus on long term revenue growth and margin improvements through tangible and intangible elements that do not systematically appear in financial statements. This pillar includes financial data and no non-financial data whereas the remaining pillars concern non-financial data, optionally in combination with financial data). and [0083] - The outcome calculation can include the delta and relative standing parameters or these can be calculated separately. "Delta" is the measurement of changes (improvements or deterioration) of the performance of that indicator over time).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 10-12, and 15; claim(s) 6, 10-12, and 15 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the device claimed in claim(s) 1-4, and 9. Claim(s) 6, 10-12, and 15 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-4, and 9, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 16-18, and 20; claim(s) 7, 16-18, and 20 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the device claimed in claim(s) 1-4, and 9. Claim(s) 7, 16-18, and 20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-4, and 9, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnemus et al. (US 2006/0200358 A1) in view of Bateman (US 2016/0117774 A1) and Kraut (US 2012/0272186 A1) and further in view of Winklevoss (US 20040039667 A1).
Regarding Claim 5;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses wherein the transmitting further comprises causing the application to display the evaluation result and financial information of the evaluation target entity in [a period] ([0042] - A user can select a period for analysis using pull-down list 308, and the ratings for the company are refreshed to coincide with the selected time period and [0045]-[0046] - Briefly, the Economic Performance rating concerns a company's capacity to generate high returns on investments. The rating system utilizes indicators that focus on long term revenue growth and margin improvements through tangible and intangible elements that do not systematically appear in financial statements. This pillar includes financial data and no non-financial data whereas the remaining pillars concern non-financial data, optionally in combination with financial data. Briefly, the Economic Performance rating concerns a company's capacity to generate high returns on investments. The rating system utilizes indicators that focus on long term revenue growth and margin improvements through tangible and intangible elements that do not systematically appear in financial statements. This pillar includes financial data and no non-financial data whereas the remaining pillars concern non-financial data, optionally in combination with financial data [...] Each of the pillars is a variable composed of one or more categories of indicators that can be manipulated through weightings, coefficients or mathematics to influence their impact on the numerical grade 322 of the integrated rating. Likewise, each of the pillars and most of the variables used in the rating system comprises a calculation that is based upon values or settings of two or more underlying indicators whose values/settings can be inspected by the user. In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the components that lead to the calculation of each pillar can be displayed by selecting a pillar from the page 300. This causes the hierarchy of parameters that comprise the value of each pillar to be displayed with each successive selection until the basic source of data for a given parameter has been displayed. In this way, a user can "drill down" and inspect the data underlying a rating, and can alter the value or weighted importance of a given indicator for display as a My Rating and [0089]).
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut fail to explicitly disclose display [data sets] in chronological order.
However, in an analogous art, Winklevoss teaches display [data sets] in chronological order (FIG. 9 and [0073] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an exemplary user interface 900, e.g., a display, for analyzer 800. Similarly to display 600, as shown in FIG. 6, a selector 901 allows the user to select one of a set of financial variables. With a selector 902, the user can select to freeze one of the three dimensions (year, mix or percentile). In this example, the output shows all years and all mixes, but only the 95.sup.th percentile of results because the percentile dimension is selected to be frozen. An output graph 904 shows that there are 20 years and two asset mixes in the analysis, labeled Asset Mix 1 and Asset Mix 2. Analyzer 900 is a tool that can show a plan sponsor, nearly instantaneously, projection data that prior art techniques typically require many weeks and many thousands of dollars to develop.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Winklevoss to the display the evaluation result and financial information of the evaluation target entity of Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut to include display [data sets] in chronological order.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Winklevoss to Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut to do so as it provides / allows analyze[...] in a intuitive, rapid, and cost-effective manner (Winklevoss, [0002]).
Regarding Claim(s) 13; claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the device claimed in claim(s) 5. Claim(s) 13 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 5, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnemus et al. (US 2006/0200358 A1) in view of Bateman (US 2016/0117774 A1) and Kraut (US 2012/0272186 A1) and further in view of Andrews et al. (US 2012/0296845 A1).
Regarding Claim 8;
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut disclose the device to Claim 1.
Ohnemus further discloses [...] the second textual data describe periodic financial performance data of the evaluation target entity ([0008]-[0009] - The indicators can be contained in a database and among them there is a first portion which relate to financial data and a second portion which relate to non-financial data [...] A processor is configured by software to compute each respective integrated rating as a single rating value which is derived by application of a first formula to prescribed ones of plural discrete indicators contained in the database. As noted above, a first portion of the discrete indicators relates to financial data whereas a second portion of the discrete indicators relates to non-financial data and [0036] - By way of overview and introduction, the present invention provides a configurable user interface to a ratings system which presents integrated ratings of financial and non-financial information regarding companies of interest and [0044] -The integrated rating 320 is preferably computed from individual ratings in four principal areas of corporate endeavor, namely, economic (which includes conventional financial data such as earnings per share, revenue, profit/loss, as well as more long term oriented qualitative information such as brands, consumer complaints, accounting practices, etc.) and [0045] - Briefly, the Economic Performance rating concerns a company's capacity to generate high returns on investments. The rating system utilizes indicators that focus on long term revenue growth and margin improvements through tangible and intangible elements that do not systematically appear in financial statements. This pillar includes financial data and no non-financial data whereas the remaining pillars concern non-financial data, optionally in combination with financial data) and [0062] – [...] data record [...] and [0083] - The outcome calculation can include the delta and relative standing parameters or these can be calculated separately. "Delta" is the measurement of changes (improvements or deterioration) of the performance of that indicator over time).
Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first textual data includes social media content about the evaluation target entity
However, in an analogous art, Andrews teaches wherein the first textual data includes social media content about the evaluation target entity and [further quantitative analysis, techniques or mathematics, such as green scoring/composite module and sentiment processing module are processed to model the value of financial securities] (Abstract and [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Andrews to the first textual data of Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut to include wherein the first textual data includes social media content about the evaluation target entity.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Andrews to Ohnemus in view of Bateman and Kraut to do so as it provides / allows leverage[ing] machine learning capabilities, news sentiment expertise, and intelligent analytics to provide a service for benchmarking the environmental and sustainability sentiment of private and publicly traded companies (Andrews, [0002]).
Regarding Claim(s) 14; claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the device claimed in claim(s) 8. Claim(s) 14 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 8, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 19; claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the device claimed in claim(s) 8. Claim(s) 19 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 8, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights