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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation in claims 1, 11, and 20 recites “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query…the step of retrieving being accomplished by…etc.” The limitation needs be corrected to “retrieving being accomplished by:”.
The limitation in claims 1, 11, and 20 recites “refining the initial set of search results…the step of refining comprising the steps of…etc.” The limitation needs be corrected to “the step of refining comprising the steps of:”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method of matching data in a search query to data in a database for determining a subject consumer's credit risk, the method comprising:
converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;
refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of
comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, and
assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a database”, “a processor”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a database”, “a processor”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;” encompasses mentally a person converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field.
Next, “refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of” encompasses mentally a person refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records.
Next, but for the matching engine via the processor, “comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records” encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor;” encompasses mentally a person assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. The mere nominal recitation of a computer system and database does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
arranging a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with a processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;
in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieving via the processor an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by
transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
Here, “arranging a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with a processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieving via the processor an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere determining matching data in a search to determine a credit risk cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieving via the processor an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieving via the processor an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieving via the processor an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, but for the processor, “further comprising: screening the plurality of database records using the processor, based on the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records;” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person screening the plurality of database records, based on the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records. Next, but for the processor, “discarding a rejected subset of the plurality of database records, using the processor, if the rejected subset does not pass the screening of the plurality of database records.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person discarding a rejected subset of the plurality of database records, if the rejected subset does not pass the screening of the plurality of database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records comprise one or more of a name word or name initials;” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, but for the processor, “screening comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person screening comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records.
Next, “discarding comprises rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for the processor, “merging the subset of the plurality of database records to produce a merged subset, using the processor, based on a similarity between each of the subset of the plurality of database records;” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person merging the subset of the plurality of database records to produce a merged subset based on a similarity between each of the subset of the plurality of database records.
Next, the limitation “wherein transmitting the subset comprises transmitting the merged subset of the plurality of database records from the processor.;” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records comprise indicative information, the indicative information comprising one or more of a name, an identification number, an account number, a telephone number, an address, a date of birth, a gender, or an e-mail address.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records comprise indicative information, the indicative information comprising one or more of a name, an identification number, an account number, a telephone number, an address, a date of birth, a gender, or an e-mail address. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength score associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength score associated with each of the plurality of database records based on comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein comparing the normalized search field comprises utilizing a phonetic algorithm to match one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises utilizing a phonetic algorithm to match one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein: comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing an address of the normalized search field with an address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing an address of the normalized search field with an address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength flag associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing the address of the normalized search field with the address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength flag associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing the address of the normalized search field with the address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the unstructured and incomplete consumer financial data includes debt repayment status and on-time debt repayment metrics about the plurality of consumers.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “, wherein the unstructured data includes a description of a residence address of the subject consumer based on relative distance of a landmark from the residence address of the subject consumer.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 11-19 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 11 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 11 recites a system for matching data in a search query to data in a database for determining a subject consumer's credit risk, the system comprising:
convert and standard the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;
refine the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of
compare, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, and
assign a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a database”, “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a database”, “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “convert and standard the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;” encompasses mentally a person convert and standard the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field.
Next, “refine the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of” encompasses mentally a person refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records.
Next, but for the matching engine via the processor, “compare, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records” encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assign a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records” encompasses mentally a person assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites
a processor; and
a memory device having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
arrange a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with the processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;
in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by
and
transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
Here, “a processor; and
a memory device having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Here, “arrange a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with the processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 11 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere determining matching data in a search to determine a credit risk cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, but for the processor, “further comprising: screening the plurality of database records using the processor, based on the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person screening the plurality of database records, based on the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records. Next, but for the processor, “discarding a rejected subset of the plurality of database records, using the processor, if the rejected subset does not pass the screening of the plurality of database records.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person discarding a rejected subset of the plurality of database records, if the rejected subset does not pass the screening of the plurality of database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records comprise one or more of a name word or name initials;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, but for the processor, “screen comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person screening comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records.
Next, “discard comprises rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for the processor, “merge the subset of the plurality of database records to produce a merged subset, using the processor, based on a similarity between each of the subset of the plurality of database records;” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person merging the subset of the plurality of database records to produce a merged subset based on a similarity between each of the subset of the plurality of database records.
Next, the limitation “wherein transmitting the subset comprises transmitting the merged subset of the plurality of database records from the processor.;” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records comprise indicative information, the indicative information comprising one or more of a name, an identification number, an account number, a telephone number, an address, a date of birth, a gender, or an e-mail address.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records comprise indicative information, the indicative information comprising one or more of a name, an identification number, an account number, a telephone number, an address, a date of birth, a gender, or an e-mail address. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength score associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength score associated with each of the plurality of database records based on comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein comparing the normalized search field comprises utilizing a phonetic algorithm to match one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises utilizing a phonetic algorithm to match one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the processor, “wherein: comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing an address of the normalized search field with an address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor;” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing an address of the normalized search field with an address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength flag associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing the address of the normalized search field with the address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength flag associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing the address of the normalized search field with the address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “, wherein the unstructured data includes a description of a residence address of the subject consumer based on relative distance of a landmark from the residence address of the subject consumer.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon to match data in a search query to data in a database for determining a subject consumer's credit risk, execution of which, by one or more processing devices, causes one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;
refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of
comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, and
assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a database”, “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a database”, “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a search query search engine”, and “a search query matching engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;” encompasses mentally a person converting and standardizing the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field.
Next, “refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of” encompasses mentally a person refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records.
Next, but for the matching engine via the processor, “comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records” encompasses mentally a person comparing the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.
Next, but for the processor, “assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records” encompasses mentally a person assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites
arranging a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with the processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;
in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by
and
transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
Here, “arranging a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with the processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 20 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere determining matching data in a search to determine a credit risk cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer, the step of retrieving being accomplished by” and “transmitting, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, the claim recites “arranging a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with a processor and an Internet accessible database, the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source, the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records;” It is unclear and indefinite as to the scope of what type of formatted data is being used. Specifically, one skilled in the art would not know to what type of consumers of data to use. The scope of “a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source…etc.” could refer to using one of a plurality of unstructured, incomplete or inconsistently formatted data. Also, the scope of “a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source…etc.” could refer to using all of a plurality of unstructured, incomplete or inconsistently formatted data. Thus, claims1, 11, and 20 are unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2-10 depends upon independent claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 12-19 depends upon independent claim 11 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 11 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Achanta et al. U.S. Patent (2013/0124392; hereinafter: Achanta, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Krishnan S et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0006075; hereinafter: Krishnan, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Goldenberg et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0089630; hereinafter: Goldenberg, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Meadows et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0319983; hereinafter: Meadows, in IDS dated 1/17/2025).
Claims 1, 11, and 20
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, Achanta discloses a system for matching data in a search query to data in a database for determining a subject consumer's credit risk, the system comprising:
a processor (paragraph[0019], the reference describes a processor.); and
a memory device having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (paragraph[0079], the reference describes software in memory being executed.):
arrange a search query search engine and a search query matching engine to be in communication with the processor and an Internet accessible database(figure 1, paragraph[0015], paragraph[0034-paragraph[0037], the reference describes a product delivery system (i.e., a search query search engine, as claimed) being able to request data from a master data system (i.e., search query matching engine, as claimed). The product delivery system and master data system are in communication, over an internet (e.g., paragraph[0075]), with a data supplier database (i.e., an internet accessible database, as claimed) (e.g., paragraph[0026]).), the database comprising a plurality of unstructured, incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted data about a plurality of consumers from a free form data source (paragraph[0015], the reference describes a database of unstructured formatted data from consumers.), the data being stored in respective database fields in a plurality of database records (paragraph[0030], the reference describes the data being stored in data fields.);
in response to receiving, via the processor, a search query communicated over the Internet to the search engine by a remote application to search for and retrieve credit-related data corresponding to the subject consumer, retrieve an initial set of search results from the database corresponding to the subject consumer(paragraph[0062]-paragraph[0064], the reference describes receiving personal credit data.),
Achanta does not appear to explicitly disclose the step of retrieving being accomplished by
convert and standard the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field;
refine the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of
compare, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, and
assign a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor; and
transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
However, Krishnan discloses the step of retrieving being accomplished by
convert and standard the search query and the plurality of database records via exact and pattern substitutions using regular expressions into a normalized search query and a plurality of normalized database records (Abstract , paragraph[0003], “These embodiments normalize strings, including query strings and search content strings, based on a phonetic representation so that normalized strings may be compared in a standard form….etc.”), based on a normalization rule, wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized search field and each of the plurality of normalized database records comprises a normalized database field (paragraph[0060]-paragraph[0061], “In one embodiment, index module 408 indexes normalized strings and associates the normalized strings with search content having the normalized string or a variant thereof. In such an embodiment, the associated search content having the normalized string, or variant thereof, may also be indexed. Accordingly, the next time a search is desired based on an indexed normalized string…etc.”, the reference describes normalizing string data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan to normalize queries and content which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan to efficiently normalize string and perform a phonetic search. (Krishan: Paragraph[0003])
The combination of Achanta and Krishan do not appear to explicitly disclose refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records, the step of refining comprising the steps of
comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, and
assign a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor; and
transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
However, Goldenberg discloses refining the initial set of search results to obtain a final plurality of normalized database records corresponding to the subject consumer by determining by the processor a degree to which fields in the search query match the fields in the plurality of database records (figures 6, 7A, 8A, and 8B, Abstract, paragraph[0062]-paragraph[0063], the reference describes comparing database incoming query fields with the existing database fields by using calculated scores. The scores of each filed is then compared to determine if the records are associated with each other. The attributes are birth dates as described in paragraph[0094] and paragraph[0177].), the step of refining comprising the steps of
comparing, by the matching engine via the processor, the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a data of the normalized search field and a corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records(figures 6, 7A, 8A, and 8B, Abstract, paragraph[0062]-paragraph[0063], the reference describes comparing database incoming query fields with the existing database fields by using calculated scores. The scores of each filed is then compared to determine if the records are associated with each other. The attributes are birth dates as described in paragraph[0094] and paragraph[0177].)
assign a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality of normalized database records, based on the calculated difference between the data of the normalized search field and the corresponding data of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor (paragraph[0063], “The scores for the set of attributes may then be summed to generate an overall score which can then be compared to a threshold to determine if the two records should be linked…etc.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan and Goldenberg to retrieve and match database records based on a score which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan and Goldenberg to efficiently identifying data records that may contain information about the same entity such that the data records may be associated (Goldenberg: Paragraph[0003]).
The combination of Achanta, Krishan, and Goldenberg do not appear to explicitly disclose transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric.
However, Meadows discloses transmit, by the matching engine via the processor to the application over the Internet, a subset of the normalized plurality of database records, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria that are based on the matching strength metric (paragraph[0008], “In a further embodiment, the second set of records may be copied to the first device before comparing the first record with each record in the second set of records. The first record and the second record may be merged to create a third record. The first record and the second record may then be replaced by the third record…etc.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows to merge similar records which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows to efficiently identify matching records and resolve conflicts when unique record identifiers are not implemented and assigned to each data record (Meadows: Paragraph[0005]).
Claims 2 and 12
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Meadows further disclose screening the plurality of database records using the processor, based on the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records (paragraph[0037], the reference describes filtering through data fields.); and
discarding a rejected subset of the plurality of database records, using the processor, if the rejected subset does not pass the screening of the plurality of database records (paragraph[0008], “In a further embodiment, the second set of records may be copied to the first device before comparing the first record with each record in the second set of records. The first record and the second record may be merged to create a third record. The first record and the second record may then be replaced by the third record...etc.”).
Claims 4 and 14
As to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Meadows further disclose merging the subset of the plurality of database records to produce a merged subset, using the processor, based on a similarity between each of the subset of the plurality of database records (paragraph[0008], “In a further embodiment, the second set of records may be copied to the first device before comparing the first record with each record in the second set of records. The first record and the second record may be merged to create a third record. The first record and the second record may then be replaced by the third record...etc.”);
wherein transmitting the subset comprises transmitting the merged subset of the plurality of database records from the processor (paragraph[0011], “comparing data stored in the first record with data stored in the selected record, assigning a score to the selected record based on the similarity between the first record and the selected record, and if the score exceeds a predetermined threshold, matching the first record with the selected record…etc.”).
Claims 5 and 15
As to claims 5 and 15, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Goldenberg further disclose wherein the normalized search field and the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records comprise indicative information, the indicative information comprising one or more of a name, an identification number, an account number, a telephone number, an address, a date of birth, a gender, or an e-mail address (paragraph[0094] and paragraph[0177], the reference describes the records as birthdates.).
Claims 6 and 16
As to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Goldenberg further disclose wherein:
comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of a name word or name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor (figures 6, 7A, 8A, and 8B, Abstract, paragraph[0062]-paragraph[0063], the reference describes comparing database incoming query fields with the existing database fields by using calculated scores. The scores of each filed is then compared to determine if the records are associated with each other. The examiner interprets the records to include name words as shown in figure 7A.);
Meadows further disclose assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength score associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records (paragraph[0008], the examiner interprets the records as data (i.e., name words, as claimed).).
Claims 7 and 17
As to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, and Krishan further disclose comparing the normalized search field comprises utilizing a phonetic algorithm to match one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized search field with one or more of the name word or the name initials of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor records (Abstract , paragraph[0003], “These embodiments normalize strings, including query strings and search content strings, based on a phonetic representation so that normalized strings may be compared in a standard form….etc.”).
Claims 8 and 18
As to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Goldenberg further disclose wherein:
comparing the normalized search field comprises comparing an address of the normalized search field with an address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records, using the processor (figures 6, 7A, 8A, and 8B, Abstract, paragraph[0062]-paragraph[0063], the reference describes comparing database incoming query fields with the existing database fields by using calculated scores. The scores of each filed is then compared to determine if the records are associated with each other. The attributes are birth dates as described in paragraph[0094] and paragraph[0177].); and
assigning the matching strength metric comprises assigning a matching strength flag associated with each of the plurality of database records, using the processor, based on comparing the address of the normalized search field with the address of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records (paragraph[0063], “The scores for the set of attributes may then be summed to generate an overall score which can then be compared to a threshold to determine if the two records should be linked…etc.”).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Achanta et al. U.S. Patent (2013/0124392; hereinafter: Achanta, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Krishnan S et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0006075; hereinafter: Krishnan, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Goldenberg et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0089630; hereinafter: Goldenberg, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Meadows et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0319983; hereinafter: Meadows, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Sadowski et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0097810; hereinafter: Sadowski)
Claims 3 and 13
As to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein:
the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records comprise one or more of a name word or name initials;
screening comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records, using the processor; and
discarding comprises rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records.
However, Sadowski discloses wherein:
the search field and the database field of each of the plurality of database records comprise one or more of a name word or name initials (Figure 21, paragraph[0099], the reference describes searching a database for names including initials.);
screening comprises comparing one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query to one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records, using the processor (Figure 21, paragraph[0099], the reference describes filtering through names using interface 21.); and
discarding comprises rejecting the rejected subset of the plurality of database records if one or more of the name word or the name initials of the search query does not match one or more of the name word or the name initials of each of the plurality of database records (Figure 21, paragraph[0099], the reference describes using filtering techniques to screen through names. The Examiner interprets screening as rejecting names that do not match the inquiry.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Sadowski to query through names which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Sadowski to efficiently manage workflow during express creation and initialization of merchant accounts (Sadowski: Paragraph[0002]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Achanta et al. U.S. Patent (2013/0124392; hereinafter: Achanta, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Krishnan S et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0006075; hereinafter: Krishnan, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Goldenberg et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0089630; hereinafter: Goldenberg, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Meadows et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0319983; hereinafter: Meadows, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Middelkamp et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0259596; hereinafter: Middelkamp)
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the unstructured and incomplete consumer financial data includes debt repayment status and on-time debt repayment metrics about the plurality of consumers.
However, Middelkamp discloses wherein the unstructured and incomplete consumer financial data includes debt repayment status and on-time debt repayment metrics about the plurality of consumers (paragraph[0035], the reference describes debt repayment metrics using unstructured data (e.g., paragraph[0059]).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Middelkamp to monitor debt related information which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Middelkamp to efficiently automate monitoring risk for automated credit monitoring of a portfolio (Middelkamp: Paragraph[0002]).
Claims 10 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Achanta et al. U.S. Patent (2013/0124392; hereinafter: Achanta, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Krishnan S et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0006075; hereinafter: Krishnan, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Goldenberg et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0089630; hereinafter: Goldenberg, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) in view of Meadows et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0319983; hereinafter: Meadows, in IDS dated 1/17/2025) and further in view of Baudisch et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0143984; hereinafter: Baudisch, in IDS dated 1/17/2025)
Claims 10 and 19
As to claims 10 and 19, the combination of Achanta, Krishan, Goldenberg, and Meadows discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the unstructured data includes a description of a residence address of the subject consumer based on relative distance of a landmark from the residence address of the subject consumer.
However, Baudisch discloses wherein the unstructured data includes a description of a residence address of the subject consumer based on relative distance of a landmark from the residence address of the subject consumer(paragraph[0023]-paragraph[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Baudisch to translate landmarks into a geographic location which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Achanta with the teachings of Krishan, Goldenberg, Meadows, and Baudisch to efficiently provide direction information and location of various registered locales (Baudisch: Paragraph[0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 May 14, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights