DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 19/057,086 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA MAPPING BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM INSURANCE SYSTEMS" originally filed on February 19, 2025, with claims 1 to 15 pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification Objections
The use of the terms DUCKCREEK®, GUIDWIRE®, MAJESCO®, EXCEL®, and WORD®, which are a trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. They should be CAPITALIZED wherever they appear and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Affidavits & Declarations
The co-inventor, Gaurang Desai, first declares, “The above identified patent application provides multiple technical advances over our previous systems including at least: reduced processing time compared to other systems; improved data accuracy compared to other systems; and reduced defect leakage to computer downstream systems… First, the claims reduce processing time compared to other systems. This is because… the claims
"determin[e] whether the one or more hardware storage devices include a previously
generated data structure that specifies a previously generated mapping" and, if true, "determin[e] to skip generation of another data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system."…. This reduced processing time can result from the reusability in the data structure and corresponding mapping (by) "determining, using second meta-data from the one or more hardware storage devices that
is for a second, different product…. the claims recite that upon determining that the one or more hardware storage devices include a previously generated data structure that specifies a previously generated mapping… Second, the data used by the claims are more accurate than data used by other systems. The claims recite "validating the accuracy of the upstream computer system and … Third, the claims result in systems that are more accurate because they only store a data structure whose accuracy has been validated... "
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 19, 2025, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1 to 15 based upon 35 USC § 101 as set forth in the last Office action of the parent application because: According to the affidavit, the alleged inventive concepts are a result of mere “determinations”, “validations”, and selective data storage that are considered abstract ideas.
The “determinations”, “validations”, and selective data storage amount to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
Improving processing through the selective use of certain data rather than utilizing the entire universe of data remains an abstract idea as well. Given that Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated serves as an abstract idea, one abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, such a result is expected. In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 3 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upstream system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it was previously described as “upstream computer system”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the downstream system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it was previously described as “downstream computer system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-15 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A ….method comprising:
receiving, …an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for a first product, wherein the plurality of requirements include (i) a first set of requirements defined for an …that receives input for the product and performs one or more first operations on the input and specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the product, and (ii) a second set of requirements defined for a ….that receives data generated …and performs one or more second, different operations on the data and specifying attributes of the product that the …requires to create the product;
in response to receiving the input that specifies the plurality of requirements for the product, generating, by the data processing system and using the input, meta-data that defines one or more values processed …for the product;
using the generated meta-data and the second set of requirements, automatically generating, …specifying a data mapping between requirements from the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system to corresponding requirements from the second set of requirements defined …
in response to generating …specifying the data mapping, generating,
….one or more …automated test scenarios and .... test data that includes one or more data types, one or more default values,
one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values,
the one or more .... automated test scenarios defining a plurality of .... operations at least some of which require the .... test data as input for validating an accuracy of the upstream .... system and the downstream .... system given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the .... test data the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping;
generating, by the data processing system, test result data by executing, using at least a portion of the .... test data as input to the data processing system that includes…the one or more .... automated test scenarios for validating the accuracy of ….given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping, wherein the one or more .... automated test scenarios, the .... test data, and the test result data comprise different data;
validating the accuracy of … using the test result data;
in response to validating the accuracy of …storing, …a) [the data structure] specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined …and the second set of requirements defined …. and b) the test result data that indicates that the data structure is valid and the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request given the test result data stored …
receiving, …a request that identifies the product;
determining… and using second meta-data from the …that is for a second, different product, whether the …. include a previously generated … that specifies a previously generated mapping for …for the first product and whether the data processing system should validate an accuracy of one or more requirements in the request; and in response to determining that the hardware storage device includes the previously generated … that specifies the previously generated mapping for the … for the first product and that the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request for the second, different product given the test result data stored …
determining, … to skip generation of another … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for ….and the second set of requirements defined for the …;
providing, …the previously generated … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for … and the second set of requirements defined …and
providing, …. a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “requirements for a first product” and to “create the product” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
The Specification states, [Summary] “receiving an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for an insurance product, … specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the insurance product.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [by a data processing system that includes one or more computers][upstream computer system] [downstream computer system] [by the upstream computer system] [downstream computer system] [by the upstream computer system] [by the data processing system] [for the downstream computer system][by the data processing system,] [computer] [the one or more computers][the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system] [by the data processing system and in one or more hardware storage devices][in the database][one or more hardware storage devices] [in the database]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[a data structure] [the data structure]:
generally linking to data structures as a tool to perform the abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[page 8] from the upstream system 102's specification (e.g., a policy xml file)
[page 9] The data mappings 108 can be generated in a form of a comma-separated values (CSV) file, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file.
[page 2] The policy admin system may be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system.
[page 15] Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front-end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in
this specification, or any combination
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“upstream (computer) system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 3:
“downstream (computer) system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 4-6: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 7 recites:
“A system comprising: …specifying a mapping, the operations comprising:
receiving, …an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for a first product, wherein the plurality of requirements include (i) a first set of requirements defined for an …that receives input for the product and performs one or more first operations on the input and specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the product, and (ii) a second set of requirements defined for a ….that receives data generated …and performs one or more second, different operations on the data and specifying attributes of the product that the …requires to create the product;
in response to receiving the input that specifies the plurality of requirements for the product, generating, by the data processing system and using the input, meta-data that defines one or more values processed …for the product;
using the generated meta-data and the second set of requirements, automatically generating, …specifying a data mapping between requirements from the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system to corresponding requirements from the second set of requirements defined …
in response to generating …specifying the data mapping, generating,
….one or more …automated test scenarios and .... test data that includes one or more data types, one or more default values,
one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values,
the one or more .... automated test scenarios defining a plurality of .... operations at least some of which require the .... test data as input for validating an accuracy of the upstream .... system and the downstream .... system given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the .... test data the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping;
generating, by the data processing system, test result data by executing, using at least a portion of the .... test data as input to the data processing system that includes…the one or more .... automated test scenarios for validating the accuracy of ….given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping, wherein the one or more .... automated test scenarios, the .... test data, and the test result data comprise different data;
validating the accuracy of … using the test result data;
in response to validating the accuracy of …storing, …a) [the data structure] specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined …and the second set of requirements defined …. and b) the test result data that indicates that the data structure is valid and the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request given the test result data stored …
receiving, …a request that identifies the product;
determining… and using second meta-data from the …that is for a second, different product, whether the …. include a previously generated … that specifies a previously generated mapping for …for the first product and whether the data processing system should validate an accuracy of one or more requirements in the request; and in response to determining that the hardware storage device includes the previously generated … that specifies the previously generated mapping for the … for the first product and that the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request for the second, different product given the test result data stored …
determining, … to skip generation of another … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for ….and the second set of requirements defined for the …;
providing, …the previously generated … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for … and the second set of requirements defined …and
providing, …. a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “requirements for a first product” and to “create the product” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
The Specification states, [Summary] “receiving an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for an insurance product, … specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the insurance product.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for generating a product data structure] [upstream system] [downstream system] [by the upstream system] [downstream system] [by the upstream system] [by the data processing system] [for the downstream system][by the data processing system,] [computer] [the one or more computers][the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system] [by the data processing system and in one or more hardware storage devices][in the database][one or more hardware storage devices] [in the database]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[a data structure] [the data structure]:
generally linking to data structures as a tool to perform the abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[page 8] from the upstream system 102's specification (e.g., a policy xml file)
[page 9] The data mappings 108 can be generated in a form of a comma-separated values (CSV) file, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file.
[page 2] The policy admin system may be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system.
[page 15] Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front-end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in
this specification, or any combination
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 8:
“upstream system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 9:
“downstream system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 10-12: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 13 recites:
“A system comprising: …specifying a mapping, the operations comprising:
receiving, …an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for a first product, wherein the plurality of requirements include (i) a first set of requirements defined for an …that receives input for the product and performs one or more first operations on the input and specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the product, and (ii) a second set of requirements defined for a ….that receives data generated …and performs one or more second, different operations on the data and specifying attributes of the product that the …requires to create the product;
in response to receiving the input that specifies the plurality of requirements for the product, generating, by the data processing system and using the input, meta-data that defines one or more values processed …for the product;
using the generated meta-data and the second set of requirements, automatically generating, …specifying a data mapping between requirements from the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system to corresponding requirements from the second set of requirements defined …
in response to generating …specifying the data mapping, generating,
….one or more …automated test scenarios and .... test data that includes one or more data types, one or more default values,
one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values,
the one or more .... automated test scenarios defining a plurality of .... operations at least some of which require the .... test data as input for validating an accuracy of the upstream .... system and the downstream .... system given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the .... test data the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping;
generating, by the data processing system, test result data by executing, using at least a portion of the .... test data as input to the data processing system that includes…the one or more .... automated test scenarios for validating the accuracy of ….given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping, wherein the one or more .... automated test scenarios, the .... test data, and the test result data comprise different data;
validating the accuracy of … using the test result data;
in response to validating the accuracy of …storing, …a) [the data structure] specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined …and the second set of requirements defined …. and b) the test result data that indicates that the data structure is valid and the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request given the test result data stored …
receiving, …a request that identifies the product;
determining… and using second meta-data from the …that is for a second, different product, whether the …. include a previously generated … that specifies a previously generated mapping for …for the first product and whether the data processing system should validate an accuracy of one or more requirements in the request; and in response to determining that the hardware storage device includes the previously generated … that specifies the previously generated mapping for the … for the first product and that the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request for the second, different product given the test result data stored …
determining, … to skip generation of another … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for ….and the second set of requirements defined for the …;
providing, …the previously generated … specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for … and the second set of requirements defined …and
providing, …. a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “requirements for a first product” and to “create the product” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
The Specification states, [Summary] “receiving an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for an insurance product, … specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the insurance product.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[one or more processors; andone or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for generating a product data structure] [upstream system] [downstream system] [by the upstream system] [downstream system] [by the upstream system] [by the data processing system] [for the downstream system][by the data processing system,] [computer] [the one or more computers][the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system] [by the data processing system and in one or more hardware storage devices][in the database][one or more hardware storage devices] [in the database]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[a data structure] [the data structure]:
generally linking to data structures as a tool to perform the abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[page 8] from the upstream system 102's specification (e.g., a policy xml file)
[page 9] The data mappings 108 can be generated in a form of a comma-separated values (CSV) file, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file, or an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file.
[page 2] The policy admin system may be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system.
[page 15] Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front-end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in
this specification, or any combination
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (“DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERAL LEDGER”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20220027380 A1), in view of Bowman-Amuah (“BASE SERVICES PATTERNS IN A NETCENTRIC ENVIRONMENT”, U.S. Patent Number: US 6742015 B1),in view of Vanderwall (“SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING SYSTEM RESOURCES AND RUNTIME DURING A TESTING PROCEDURE”, U.S. Patent Number: US 10747651 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Martin teaches,
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a data processing system that includes one or more computers, an input that specifies a plurality of requirements for a first product, wherein the plurality of requirements include (i) a first set of requirements defined
(Martin [0018] The method can include capturing disparate data from a plurality of tenants and users and then standardizing or centralizing the data such that data is harmonized according to multiple insurance related reporting requirements and calculations.
Martin [0157] The device 300 can be configured to connect with other devices, such as remote CPUs, networks, etc.
Martin [0013] system includes a receiver module configured to receive data input from a plurality of sources.
Martin [0068] The policies component can comprise referring to relevant policies, rules, and terms, such as an information governance catalog
Martin [0009] Data rules can be defined
Martin [0055] contract refers to primary insurance contracts, reinsurance treaties, and facultative certificates.
Martin [0108] configured to define the reinsurance contract
Martin [0112] multiple robots are defined to execute defined “jobs” in order to set up reinsurance contract)
for an upstream computer system that receives input for the product and performs one or more first operations on the input and specifying underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the product,
(Martin [0083] Reinsurance Engine (RE) (e.g. XLPro). In one aspect, the RE is configured to receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
Martin [0109] CE is configured to allow the client, user, or business the granularity to assess the risk to the organization at an earlier point in the underwriting process.
Martin [0114] This allows for exception-based workflow)
and (ii) a second set of requirements defined for a downstream computer system that receives data generated by the upstream computer system and performs one or more second, different operations on the data
(Martin [0018] to multiple insurance related reporting requirements and calculations.
Martin [0117] regulatory requirements
Martin [0093] and the generation of data for downstream processes.
Martin [0083] derived from upstream processes
Martin [0034] illustrate exemplary interfaces of different aspects of a Mapping Automation Tool (MAT) module.
Martin [0049] methods are configured to collect, manage, analyze, and display information from a variety of sources, such as companies or tenants, among a variety of different types of information.)
and specifying attributes of the product that the downstream computer system requires to create the product;
(Martin [0093] generation of data for downstream processes.
Martin [0052] for operational reporting and the creation of journal entries
Martin [0013] generate insurance parameters based on the staged data. A journal entry module is configured to populate a general ledger based at least on the staged data and the insurance parameters.)
in response to receiving the input that specifies the plurality of requirements for the product, generating, by the data processing system and using the input, meta-data that defines one or more values processed by the upstream computer system for the product;
(Martin [0007] automatically apply industry specific data rules and algorithms through the utilization of metadata and crosswalks to standardize and normalize the data and generate industry specific analysis and generate financial calculations to automate business processes.
Martin [0083] derived from upstream processes)
using the generated meta-data and the second set of requirements, automatically generating, by the data processing system, a data structure specifying a data mapping between requirements from the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system to corresponding requirements from the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system;
(Martin [0007] through the utilization of metadata
Martin [0018] to multiple insurance related reporting requirements
Martin [0117] regulatory requirements
Martin [0084] receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file containing journal lines which can be automatically imported into the enterprise general ledger.
Martin [0083] derived from upstream processes
Martin [0093] generation of data for downstream processes.)
in response to generating the data structure specifying the data mapping
(Martin [0084] receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file containing journal lines which can be automatically imported into the enterprise general ledger.)
as input for validating an accuracy of the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the computer … data the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping; as input to the data processing system that includes the one or more computers, the one or more computer automated test scenarios for validating the accuracy of the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system given the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements using the first set of requirements, the second set of requirements and the data mapping,
(Martin [0083] configured to receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
Martin [0131] the journal entry is supported by validation reports or audit trails evidencing the completeness of the underlying data as it moved through the process from source to the general ledger.
Martin [0081] to identify a mapping accuracy score.
Martin [0117] data quality checks...determine if action is required with respect to any policies, such as dependency, financial integrity, linking, mapping, formatting, regulatory requirements, etc....if there is a linking error,....if a mapping is missing ... If everything is determined to be complete and accurate, then the user can approve the data for downstream processing.)
in response to validating the accuracy of the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system, storing, by the data processing system and in one or more hardware storage devices, a) the data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system
(Martin [0117] data quality checks...determine if action is required with respect to any policies, such as dependency, financial integrity, linking, mapping, formatting, regulatory requirements, etc....if there is a linking error,....if a mapping is missing ... If everything is determined to be complete and accurate, then the user can approve the data for downstream processing.
Martin [0003] ability to store, process, and analyze large amounts of data
Martin [0065] adjust chart field requirements
Martin [0084] receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file
Martin [0132] data extraction from various, different sources. Step 120 generally includes harmonizing the raw data)
receiving, by the data processing system, a request that identifies the product;
(Martin [0101] configured to intake information, such as premium and commission transactional details, and earns each out based on an assigned earning method for a specific policy. ... based on an assigned method and accounting dates for a transaction effective date, transaction expiration date, and book date)
determining, by the data processing system and using second meta-data from the one or more hardware storage devices that is for a second, different product,
(Martin [0075] receive an input of source system metadata, data and profiling results and profiling results, and is configured to output a source for target mapping metadata.
Martin [0109] analyze the changing risk value of a particular insurance policy. For example, the insurance policy associated with an oil drilling insurance contract is very high
Martin [0114] analyze specific policies
Martin [0174] implemented in software, a computer program, and/or hardware.)
whether the one or more hardware storage devices include a previously generated data structure that specifies a previously generated mapping for the upstream and downstream computer systems for the first product
(Martin [Claim 12] comprises mapping the different file types
Martin [0011] change data detection (CDD) (e.g., comparison of current source system values to previous source system values to generate change)
Martin [0084] receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file)
and whether the data processing system should validate an accuracy of one or more requirements in the request;
(Martin [0024] assigning a security protocol to the information generated...can further include providing a user interface in which a user is required to validate the raw data)
and in response to determining that the hardware storage device includes the previously generated data structure that specifies the previously generated mapping for the upstream and downstream computer systems for the first product
(Martin [0011] change data detection (CDD) (e.g., comparison of current source system values to previous source system values to generate change)
Martin [0084] output at least one XML file)
Martin does not teach generating, by the data processing system, one or more computer automated test scenarios and computer test data that includes one or more data types, one or more default values, one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values, the one or more computer automated test scenarios defining a plurality of computer operations at least some of which require the computer test data; using the computer test data; generating, by the data processing system, test result data by executing, using at least a portion of the computer test data; wherein the one or more computer automated test scenarios, the computer test data, and the test result data comprise different data; validating the accuracy of the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system using the test result data; and b) the test result data that indicates that the data structure is valid and the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request given the test result data stored in the database; and that the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request for the second, different product given the test result data stored in the database: determining, by the data processing system, to skip generation of another data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system; providing, by the data processing system, the previously generated data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system; and providing, by the data processing system, a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.
Bowman-Amuah teaches,
generating, by the data processing system, one or more computer automated test scenarios and computer test data that includes one or more data types, one or more default values,
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 146, Lines 39-40] testing strategy must generally include more testing phases, each specifying a lower level of detail
Bowman-Amuah [Col 171, Lines 6-12] Automated testing can also make the configuration management process more efficient. By using an automated test process to verify that the latest version of the application is working correctly, it is possible to give the development and testing teams more stable releases.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 12, Lines 22-23] the new software project has to be written and tested from scratch
Bowman-Amuah [Col 150, Line 23] creating test conditions
Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63] requiring new test definition and input data.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 12, Line 8] An object can represent user-defined data types
Bowman-Amuah [Col 14, Lines 35-38] It typically includes objects that provide default behavior (e.g., for menus and windows), and programmers use it by inheriting some of that default behavior)
the one or more computer automated test scenarios defining a plurality of computer operations at least some of which require the computer test data
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 146, Lines 39-40] testing strategy must generally include more testing phases, each specifying a lower level of detail
Bowman-Amuah [Col 171, Lines 6-12] Automated testing can also make the configuration management process more efficient.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63] requiring new test definition and input data.)
using the computer test data
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63] requiring new test definition and input data.)
generating, by the data processing system, test result data by executing, using at least a portion of the computer test data
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63] requiring new test definition and input data.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 281, Lines 37-38] Any changes to particular data elements only need to be changed, tested
Bowman-Amuah [Col 18, Lines 21-22] verify that specified inputs to components yield specified results)
wherein the one or more computer automated test scenarios, the computer test data, and the test result data comprise different data; validating the accuracy of the upstream computer system and the downstream computer system using the test result data;
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63] requiring new test definition and input data.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 281, Lines 37-38] Any changes to particular data elements only need to be changed, tested
Bowman-Amuah [Col 18, Lines 21-22] verify that specified inputs to components yield specified results)
and b) the test result data that indicates that the data structure is valid
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 281, Lines 37-38] Any changes to particular data elements only need to be changed, tested
Bowman-Amuah [Col 248, Lines 60-63] This includes simple data validations, representing data structures and relationships, error and exception handling)
and the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request given the test result data stored in the database;
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 51, Lines 61-63] Access Services enable an application to retrieve data from a database as well as manipulate (insert, update, delete) data in a database.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 79, Lines 42043] when existing data stores have information that is needed
Bowman-Amuah [Col 222, Lines 12-15] No need—If a particular interface or service only has one client, why bother registering it globally? It doesn't make sense and causes additional administration.)
and that the data processing system should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements in the request for the second, different product given the test result data stored in the database:
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 51, Lines 61-63] Access Services enable an application to retrieve data from a database as well as manipulate (insert, update, delete) data in a database.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 79, Lines 42043] when existing data stores have information that is needed
Bowman-Amuah [Col 222, Lines 12-15] No need—If a particular interface or service only has one client, why bother registering it globally? It doesn't make sense and causes additional administration.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 11, Lines 43-47] object overrides....characteristics, which are typically different from those associated ...It skips over the original
Bowman-Amuah [Col 14, Lines 51-58] Call versus override.....but to take full advantage of a framework's reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides
Bowman-Amuah [Col 11, Lines 43-47] object overrides....characteristics, which are typically different from those associated ...It skips over the original
Bowman-Amuah [Col 14, Lines 51-58] Call versus override.....but to take full advantage of a framework's reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides )
determining, by the data processing system, to skip generation of another data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system;
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 11, Lines 43-47] object overrides....characteristics, which are typically different from those associated ...It skips over the original
Bowman-Amuah [Col 14, Lines 51-58] Call versus override.....but to take full advantage of a framework's reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides)
providing, by the data processing system, the previously generated data structure specifying the mapping between the first set of requirements defined for the upstream computer system and the second set of requirements defined for the downstream computer system;
(Bowman-Amuah [Col 131, Lines 2-3] Another possibility is to “wrap” existing code
Bowman-Amuah [Col 132, Line 15-16] while reusing existing components.
Bowman-Amuah [Col 186, Lines 22-24] It is generally worthwhile to spend more time upfront determining how to reuse existing components than it is to spend less time developing a new solution)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data mapping of Martin to incorporate the test scenarios teachings of Bowman-Amuah for “requiring new test definition and input data.” (Bowman-Amuah [Col 170, Lines 62-63]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. test scenarios) to a known concept (i.e. data mapping) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “for testing successfulness of an operation having pre-conditions and post-conditions that must be satisfied for the operation to be successful” Bowman-Amuah [Col 7, Lines 57-61])
Bowman-Amuah does not teach one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values; providing, by the data processing system, a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.
Vanderwall teaches,
one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values;
(Vanderwall [Col 50, Lines 15-17] corresponds to the possible combination of inputting values in both the Minimum and Maximum Price
Vanderwall [Col 51, Lines 26-27] while having different minimum and maximum values)
providing, by the data processing system, a message indicating that the test result data for the mapping was already generated.
(Vanderwall [Col 4,, Lines 63-64] error messages, audio alerts
Vanderwall [Col 23, Lines 47-49] the new hypotheses may be generated based on the results of previous hypotheses tested by the system)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data mapping of Martin to incorporate the minimum/maximum value teachings of Vanderwall for “minimum and maximum values.” (Vanderwall [Col 51, Lines 26-27]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. minimum/maximum value) to a known concept (i.e. data mapping) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “possible combination of inputting values in both the Minimum and Maximum Price” Vanderwall [Col 50, Lines 15-17])
Regarding Claim 2,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the upstream system is a policy admin system configured to perform the one or more first operations related to products.
(Martin [Claim 17] comprising calculating earnings of a specific insurance policy
Martin [0083] financial facts derived from upstream processes)
Regarding Claim 3,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the downstream system includes one or more of a financial system, a claim system, an operational and bureau reporting system, or a billing system.
(Martin [0062] configured to implement XLPro as an outward/ceded reinsurance solution, including standardization and centralization of reinsurance treaties and facultative contracts management and reporting, as well as ceded billing calculations.
Martin [0146] configured to trigger the jobs required to perform reinsurance recovery and payable calculations.)
Regarding Claim 4,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the underwriting workflow includes capturing policy data to underwrite a risk associated with the product based on one or more underwriting guidelines.
(Martin [0118] quickly determine the net written premium, net earned premium, net losses incurred, net underwriting losses, FX gains/losses, net reported operating income.
Martin [0160] include claim data, coverage data, contract data, risk data
Martin [0051] claims, coverages, contracts, risk, terms, loss
Martin [0100] to parameterize various data enrichment calculations related to industry-specific accounting guidance)
Regarding Claim 5,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein capturing policy data includes capturing data related to account information, forms of the product, risk characteristic, coverages, premium and surcharges information, and billing information.
(Martin [0060] customer account reconciliation
Martin [0053] attributes associated with both the claim and any claimants associated with the claim. Attributes of a claim can include dates associated with the claim...Claimant attributes can include the claimant's name or the claimant's address, as well as other identifying characteristics of the claimant.
Martin [0160] raw data may include claim data, coverage data, contract data, risk data, term data, loss data, premium data, receivables data, and submissions data
Martin [0059] premium transactions can contain premium, commission, and surcharge details.
Martin [0062] as well as ceded billing calculations.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the operation workflow includes executing a policy of the product during a life-cycle of the policy.
(Martin [0103] Factors can be parametrized to align a specific exposure that is appropriate for a given policy term
Martin [0149] Workflow automation according to the system disclosed herein provides reliable and independently verified data
Martin [0054] The term coverages as used herein refers to attributes associated with insurance coverage for an insurance contract.)
Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
the first set of requirements comprises a first requirement and another, different first requirement; the second set of requirements comprises a second requirement; a third set of requirements defined for a second downstream system comprises a third requirement;
(Martin [0065] to adjust chart field requirements
Martin [0018] multiple insurance related reporting requirements
Martin [0117] quickly determine if action is required with respect to any policies, such as dependency, financial integrity, linking, mapping, formatting, regulatory requirements, etc.
Martin [0018] The method can include capturing disparate data from a plurality of tenants and users and then standardizing or centralizing the data such that data is harmonized according to multiple insurance related reporting requirements and calculations.
Martin [0123] Data sourcing can include various different types and files relating to a company's data, such as company systems, data warehouses, data marts, spreadsheets (e.g. Excel files) and other third-party origins.
Martin [0093] for downstream processes.
Martin [0141] for downstream systems.)
and generating the data structure comprises generating the data structure specifies the mapping between the first requirement to the second requirement and between the other, different first requirement and the third requirement.
(Martin [0084] receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file containing journal lines which can be automatically imported into the enterprise general ledger.
Martin [0117] linking, mapping, formatting
Martin [0132] data extraction from various, different sources. Step 120 generally includes harmonizing the raw data)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall in view of Ding (“A RANDOM VERIFICATION PLATFORM AND METHOD BASED ON SYSTEMVERILOG”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 104392066 A).
Regarding Claim 15,
Martin, Bowman-Amuah, and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
the product
(Martin [0055] contract refers to primary insurance contracts, reinsurance treaties, and facultative certificates.
Martin [0108] configured to define the reinsurance contract
Martin [0112] multiple robots are defined to execute defined “jobs” in order to set up reinsurance contract)
Martin does not teach wherein the computer test data comprises randomly computer generated values that satisfy the first and the second set of requirements, and the one or more computer automated test scenarios comprise a series of steps for validating
Ding teaches,
wherein the computer test data comprises randomly computer generated values that satisfy the first and the second set of requirements, and the one or more computer automated test scenarios comprise a series of steps for validating
(Ding [0016] can generate random configuration data according to the configuration requirements, the Packet module randomly generates the input
Ding [0012] random verification platform verifying platform built using SystemVerilog, it can effectively allow the single test to check the plurality of function points, ...each test actually describing a series of events which may occur)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data mapping of Martin to incorporate the random test data teachings of Ding that “can generate random configuration data according to the configuration requirements.” (Ding [0016]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. random test data) to a known concept (i.e. data mapping) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “can effectively allow the single test to check the plurality of function points” Ding [0012])
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Underwood (“Managing User Information On An E-commerce System”, U.S. Patent Number: US 7100195 B1) proposes management of user information of both site server and regular web site users. A site server is provided with information stored thereon including preferences, roles, and details related to users. A database separate from the site server is also provided. The database has information stored thereon including preferences, roles, and details relating to the users. An identity of one of the users is authenticated. A single interface is displayed which provides the user access to both the site server and the database upon authentication of the identity of the user. The user is allowed to view and change the information that is stored on the site server and the database and that is associated with the user. The single interface is tailored based on the information associated with the user.
Omoigui (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR KNOWLEDGE RETRIEVAL, MANAGEMENT, DELIVERY AND PRESENTATION”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20100070448 A1) provides an integrated implementation framework and resulting medium for knowledge retrieval, management, delivery and presentation. The system includes a first server component that is responsible for adding and maintaining domain-specific semantic information and a second server component that hosts semantic and other knowledge for use by the first server component that work together to provide context and time-sensitive semantic information retrieval services to clients operating a presentation platform via a communication medium. Within the system, all objects or events in a given hierarchy are active Agents semantically related to each other and representing queries (comprised of underlying action code) that return data objects for presentation to the client according to a predetermined and customizable theme or "Skin." This system provides various means for the client to customize and "blend" Agents and the underlying related queries to optimize the presentation of the resulting information. The present invention is directed to a framework or medium for knowledge retrieval, management, delivery and/or presentation. The system maintains semantic information and other knowledge to provide retrieval services to clients via a communication medium. Within the system, objects or events in a hierarchy are semantically related to each other, and agents implementing queries return data objects for presentation to the client according to a semantically influenced or determined theme. This system provides various means for the client to customize agents and/or the underlying related queries to optimize the presentation of the resulting information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10am to 4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695