The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the application filed on 11/25/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11704731. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim is to a species and the claim under examination is to a genus that encompasses that species. The instant claim is directed to“ calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot” and the conflicting claim is directed to “calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, social media data of the property, third-party data, location information, business credit information, prior interactions, employee sentiment data, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot.” The calculating a risk score based on the trained predictive scoring model, third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot is anticipated by the calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, social media data of the property, third-party data, location information, business credit information, prior interactions, employee sentiment data, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot. (emphasis added for additional limitations in the US Patent). Independent claim 1 is representative. Independent claims 13 and 17 are parallel claims directed to computer readable media and method.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim is to a species and the claim under examination is to a genus that encompasses that species. The instant claim is directed to“ calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot” and the conflicting claim is directed to “calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, social media data of the property, third-party data, location information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot” The calculating a risk score based on the trained predictive scoring model, third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot is anticipated by the calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, social media data of the property, third-party data, location information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot. (emphasis added for additional limitations in the US Patent). Independent claim 1 is representative. Independent claims 13 and 17 are parallel claims directed to computer readable media and method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are free of prior art and would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejection is overcome with the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer.
The most remarkable prior art of record is: US 20130262530 (Collins) teaches the matching of buildings to street address and customer number for the purpose of risk assessment and premium calculation. US 20050144114 (Ruggieri) teaches data aggregation and analysis for risk managers, including [0093], [0106] the determination of related to document matching. [0156] contemplates a geography field. [0214] contemplates a risk accounting module.
The prior art fails to disclose at least the following limitations: “calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot, and … (vii) execute the selected workflow path by modifying a set of information requests including the automatic removal of information requests transmitted from the enterprise when the calculated risk score is below a pre-determined threshold value.”
None of the prior art of record remedies the deficiencies found in Collins and Ruggieri. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, provide any reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings with the concept of calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, , third-party data, location information, business credit information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot, and … (vii) execute the selected workflow path by modifying a set of information requests including the automatic removal of information requests transmitted from the enterprise when the calculated risk score is below a pre-determined threshold value.”
Subject Matter Eligible
The limitations in the independent claims 1, 13 and 17 of “a potential association data store containing electronic records representing a plurality of potential associations for properties, each property having a building, and the enterprise and, for each potential association, an electronic record identifier and a set of attribute values; a historical data store containing electronic records representing prior associations with the enterprise and, for each prior association, an electronic record identifier, a set of attribute values, and at least one prior result;
a model training computer to access information in the historical data store, including sets of attribute values and prior results for a plurality of prior associations, to train a predictive scoring model with historic insurance claim information associated insurance policies along with third-party data and transmit the trained predictive scoring model to an automated scoring analysis computer; the automated scoring analysis computer, coupled to the potential association data store and the historical data store, including: a first computer processor, and a first computer memory, coupled to the first computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the first computer processor, cause the automated scoring analysis computer to: access, via an encrypted database management system, information in the potential association data store, including sets of attribute values, receive an indication of a selected potential association in the potential association data store, including the set of attribute values, calculate a risk score for the selected potential association, representing a risk of loss for a property, based on all of: the trained predictive scoring model, social media data of the property, third-party data, location information, and information about the building, including a building limit per square foot, and output an indication of the calculated risk score; the front-end application computer server, coupled to the automated scoring analysis computer, including: a second computer processor, and a second computer memory, coupled to the second computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the second computer processor, cause the front-end application computer server to: receive the indication of the calculated risk score for the selected potential association, automatically select a workflow path from a plurality of potential workflow paths based on the indication of the calculated risk score, execute the selected workflow path by modifying a set of information requests including the automatic removal of information requests transmitted from the enterprise when the calculated risk score is below a pre-determined threshold value and the automatic completion of the potential association based on the calculated risk score and responses received in association with the modified set of information requests, and transmit training information to the model training computer to adapt the trained predictive scoring model to changing conditions; and a communication port coupled to the front-end application computer server to transmit data for an interactive user interface display in accordance with the selected workflow path via security features and a distributed communication network, wherein the selected workflow path reduces an overall number of electronic messages transmitted by omitting a subset of information request messages transmitted via the communication port when the calculated risk score is below the pre-determined threshold value, and further wherein the interactive user interface display includes all of an image of the property and building, a linear graphical representation of the calculated risk score, and an indication of the selected workflow path“ are limitations, which when considered as an ordered combination are indicative of integration into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ruggieri disclose project future losses and employee satisfaction, Greef discloses a workflow path and a visual process layout. Ng discloses insurance brokers may also utilize the present technology, employee sentiment, and aggregate risk score. Saukas discloses risk score and job demand and/or job satisfaction. Chen discloses a system for determining financial exposure. Collins discloses a match candidate building with street address or customer account. Roberts discloses receiving third party data for determining risk. Purandare discloses a system for evaluating insurance product underwriting and rating data. Strabel discloses examples of attribute values might be associated with information about the insurance policy, such as a property deductible amount, a business personal property limit, a building limit, and/or a building limit per square foot. Carver discloses incident triage scoring engine and workflow path. Schultz visual property reporting and automatic structure detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691