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 Final Office Action in response to application 19/057,086 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA MAPPING BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM INSURANCE SYSTEMS" filed on June 8, 2026, with claims 1 to 15 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 13-15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 8, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 17, 2026.
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. 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. The invention is merely the abstract idea performed on a processor. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
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 first product and performs one or more first operations on the input and specifying an underwriting workflow and operational workflow associated with the first 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 first product that the …requires to create the first product, the first set of requirements indicating different requirements than the second set of requirements;
in response to receiving the input that specifies the plurality of requirements for the first product, generating, by the data processing system and using the input, meta-data that defines one or more values processed …for the first 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 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 one or more hardware storage device include 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 data 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, the first set of requirements indicating different requirements than the second set of requirements;
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:
“…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, the first set of requirements indicating different requirements than the second set of requirements;
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 one or more computers should not validate the accuracy of one or more requirements 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations] [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 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
(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)
(i) a first set of requirements defined 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 [0123] data is sourced directly from operational systems or applications at step 110. 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 [Figure 1, Element 110]
PNG
media_image1.png
645
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin [0134] that use disparate reporting systems.....The system is configured to take in a concatenation of these fields into the ASLOB column in staging and then apply their business rules via mapping
Martin [0006] to extract, analyze and collate raw data from various sources
Martin [0014] In one embodiment, a reference data mapping suggestion module is configured to automatically map user data to specific insurance parameters
Martin [0122] Arrows extending between any components are generally used to indicate workflow or transmission of information and data.
Martin [Abstract] calculating a plurality of insurance related parameters based on the raw data
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.)
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 [0132] Step 120 generally includes harmonizing the raw data from step 110 and mapping the data to a common set of terms. As used in this context, raw data can mean data extracted from the source system prior to any transformations.
Martin [0127] A data modeling step 130 is illustrated next in FIG. 1. ....Data enrichment and calculation activities are carried out during step 130. ....Step 130 includes at least the WE 4, the EDS 5, the RDD 6, the CE 8, the Configuration Engine 11, and the FET 13.
Martin [Figure 1, Elements 120 and 130]
PNG
media_image2.png
639
885
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martin [0153] Common values can be combined and mapped into other corporate values to drive downstream processing..... common values can be common to General Ledger, ERM, US STAT, AM Best, Solvency II, PNC II, and/or Lloyds
Martin [0018] to multiple insurance related reporting requirements and calculations.
Martin [0117] regulatory requirements)
and specifying attributes of the first product that the downstream computer system requires to create the first 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.)
the first set of requirements indicating different requirements than the second set of requirements;
(Martin [0064] can be configured to use different calculation rules
Martin [0087] receive an input of financial calculations and KPIs from the CE ...for a legal entity and currency translation rates, and is configured to output financial calculations and KPIs translated to the target currency rates ... of multiple currency types... the FET is configured to translate these rates into at least five different currency types, such as consolidated/USD, domicile, functional, source, and reporting currency type.)
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 first 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 [0012] The system conforms source system values into standardized values allowing the standardized values
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 [0083] receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
Martin [0093] the generation of data for downstream processes.
Martin [0018] 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 [0086] Data Entry Automation module is configured to receive an input of historical facultative legacy system metadata, and is configured to output a validated facultative certificate in XLPro (Reinsurance solution/module). )
in response to generating the data structure specifying the data mapping
(Martin [0018] 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 [0086] Data Entry Automation module is configured to receive an input of historical facultative legacy system metadata, and is configured to output a validated facultative certificate in XLPro (Reinsurance solution/module).)
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 [0013] a system for collecting, organizing, analyzing and displaying information is provided. The system includes a receiver module configured to receive data input from a plurality of sources. A quality module is configured to evaluate data received by the receiver module and generate staged data.
Martin [0133] Step 130 generally includes analyzing the harmonized data from step 120 in order to validate the harmonized data and check for deviations.
Martin [0081] Reference Data Mapping Suggestion Engine (RDMSE). .... is configured to receive an input of source system values, and output mapping recommendations to conformed values based upon prior experience or algorithms, such as natural language processing to identify a mapping accuracy score. The process will evaluate any reference data values which have not been previously conformed and will compare those to values which have been previously conformed..)
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 data 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 [Abstract] data governance protocols and harmonizing the raw data
Martin [0008] synchronize or harmonize data from multiple users or tenants... include data scrubbing and mapping techniques.
Martin [0135] The IBM data structure is indicated
Martin [0084] the JEA is configured to receive an input of financial calculation generated by the CE and mapped to GL accounts, and output at least one XML file)
receiving, by the data processing system, a request that identifies the first 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 [0011] change data detection (CDD) (e.g., comparison of current source system values to previous source system values to generate change
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.)
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 [0081] various libraries will then use the previously conformed values to produce recommendations for the unconfirmed values. For example: a state abbreviation received from a source system can be checked and evaluated against previous state abbreviations from other tenants, and therefore the RDMSE can be configured to produce a mapping recommendation and similarity score)
and whether the data processing system should validate an accuracy of one or more requirements in the request;
(Martin [0081] Reference Data Mapping Suggestion Engine (RDMSE). ... configured to receive an input of source system values, and output mapping recommendations to conformed values ...to identify a mapping accuracy score. The process will evaluate any reference data values which have not been previously conformed and will compare those to values which have been previously conformed.
Martin [0065] data quality rules to create a series of rules that will validate whether or not there is an existence for chart fields ...the ability to adjust chart field requirements as needed)
and in response to determining that the one or more hardware storage device include the previously generated data structure that specifies the previously generated mapping for the upstream and downstream computer systems for the first product
(Martin [0068] the compliance component can include value mapping, remediation, and approval. During value mapping, the reference data management aspect can ensure there are consistent values and check the compliance or fit between source data and target values. During remediation, any corrective or remedial action can be handled. This can include ... system ...and rule fit or application. Finally, the approval component can be carried out...checks the information assets.)
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 a 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 data 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.
Vanderwall 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,
(Vanderwall [Col 3, Lines 52-55] Such existing testing systems typically rely on trial and error to determine the correct data type and the constraints
Vanderwall [Col 5, Lines 29-33] suggested constraints may include,... types of values...appropriate default 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; 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 a 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 data 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;
(Vanderwall [Col 67, Lines 5-40] the discovery as testing strategy 813 may be utilized to reduce the number of enumerated and/or executed tests... validators... tests are enumerated to evaluate hypotheses and/or constraints....constraints and/or hypotheses related to these fields, may have been produced, or may be validated,...by previously performed activities...If performed under sufficiently similar conditions and if resulting in results sufficiently similar to test results 916, these previously performed activities may replace the need to enumerate similar tests and/or to execute similar tests....the results of such previously performed activities may be utilized as a test result ... if explorations equivalent to tests 8 and 10 from FIG. 7 were executed ...such that the results of the exploration were represented...the enumerated test 10 may be skipped.
Vanderwall [Col 44, Lines 12-17] confidence value and the correlating performed in step 606 is that correlating may be the task of mapping at least one object to at least one other object
Vanderwall [Col 2, Lines 8-14] a field may comprise, but is not limited to, an input field (i.e. an input field of an application under evaluation 230 that can take any input), an output field (i.e. an output field of an application under evaluation 230 that can have any output), parameters (e.g. parameters of application programming interfaces (APIs)(e.g. REST APIs, HTTP/HTTPS calls, or other APIs)), an allowable value in an input and/or output media device
Vanderwall [Col 7, Lines 12-35] identifying a source from an output of an application ...extracting data from the source... The system may also generate a potential correlation by performing a softmatch between source information and target information
Examiner interprets input/API and " source from an output " as upstream and output/API as downstream)
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 test scenarios teachings of Vanderwall for “a testing procedure.” (Vanderwall [Abstract]). 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. “testing may be optimized by simplifying and/or reducing the number of hypothesis tests” Vanderwall [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 2,
Martin and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the upstream computer system is a policy admin system configured to perform the one or more first operations related to products.
(Martin [Fig 1, Elements 110 and 120] Examiner notes both 110 and 120 are upstream of 150
PNG
media_image3.png
615
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Martin [0068] The policies component can comprise referring to relevant policies, rules, and terms, such as an information governance catalog and reference data management. This process can also include a data dictionary aspect.
Martin [0083] financial facts derived from upstream processes)
Regarding Claim 3,
Martin and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the downstream computer system includes one or more of a financial system, a claim system, an operational and bureau reporting system, or a billing system.
(Martin [Figure 1, Element 150]
PNG
media_image4.png
615
898
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 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 first 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 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 first 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 and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
wherein the operation workflow includes executing a policy of the first 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 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 that specifies the data mapping between the first requirement and 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
Martin [0064] can be configured to use different calculation rules
Martin [0022] based on data governance rules and data quality rules. The raw data from the plurality of users includes different file types and different naming conventions.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin 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 and Vanderwall teach the data mapping of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Martin teaches,
the first 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])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on June 8, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Interview Summary
The Applicant states:
“Examiner Ekechukwu asked what in claim 1 is novel and inventive relative to the policy admin systems of DUCKCREEK®, GUIDWIRE®, MAJESCO® (mentioned at p. 2, 11. 15-15 of the application as filed), further conflating the standards for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103.."
Examiner responds:
The Specification states, [page 2] The policy admin system may be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system.
Examiner continues to ask what inventive concept exists beyond utilizing DUCKCREEK*, GUIDWIRE®, MAJESCO®? Applicant “merely applies” existing technology. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf technologies for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information.
The Applicant states:
“However, there is an inconsistency between the Action and the Examiner's interview summary, with the Action indicating that the reinsurance engine (RE) corresponds to the claimed upstream system (see Action at p. 31) and the interview summary indicating that the RE corresponds to the claimed downstream system."
Examiner responds:
Applicant misinterprets the citation in the earlier Office Action. For clarification Examiner, this action states: Martin [0083] … In one aspect, the RE is configured to receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
Examiner notes for clarification that in one scenario, the “Reinsurance Engine (RE) (e.g. XLPro)” receives inputs from various upstream computer systems; not necessarily that the “Reinsurance Engine (RE) (e.g. XLPro)” is an upstream computer system.
The Applicant states:
“Further, although the Action suggests that the Mapping Automation Tool (MAT) module corresponds to the claimed downstream system (see Action at p. 32), the Examiner's interview summary does not mention the MAT module."
Examiner responds:
Martin contains multiple downstream systems including the cited Mapping Automation Tool (MAT) module as well as those in the interview summary.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's amendments rectify the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112.
The rejection under 35 USC § 112 is lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“The Office also has not shown why the claim feature of "test result data" is not an additional element given that the claims allegedly relate to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and test result data neither relates to human activity, nor fundamental economic principles or practices, nor commercial or legal interactions."
Examiner responds:
The “test result data" amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data 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)]
The Applicant states:
“As indicated above, these features recite additional elements. As a result, the above claim feature can provide an improvement. Validating the accuracy of the upstream and downstream computer systems using the test result data and storing the data structure and the test result data in response to this validation provide a technical improvement and integrate any judicial exception into practical application.."
Examiner responds:
The act of “Validating the accuracy of the upstream and downstream computer systems using the test result data and storing … the test result data in response to this validation” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data expresses an Abstract Idea.
The Specification states, [page 2] The policy admin system may be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system.
Examiner continues to ask what inventive concept exists beyond utilizing DUCKCREEK*, GUIDWIRE®, MAJESCO®? Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf technologies for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information.
The additional elements amount to no more than "merely applying" instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Using a generic computer and off-the-shelf software to implement an abstract idea does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The claims invoke generic computers and off-the-shelf software merely as a tools to perform an existing process or to automate a manual or mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) - Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Applicant states:
“the declaration does not state and the claims do not recite "[i]mproving processing through the selective use of certain data rather than utilizing the entire universe of data" or "Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated."
Examiner responds:
The claims state, "an input that specifies a plurality of requirements...specifying an underwriting workflow and operational workflow... includes one or more data types, one or more default values, one or more minimum values, and one or more maximum values... defining a plurality of computer operations ....using at least a portion of the computer test data....using second meta-data" which read as "Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated."
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art.
Excised prior art includes:
Bowman-Amuah (“BASE SERVICES PATTERNS IN A NETCENTRIC ENVIRONMENT”, U.S. Patent Number: US 6742015 B1)
The Applicant states:
“the portions of Martin cited as allegedly disclosing "meta-data that defines one or more values processed by the upstream computer system" are silent to meta-data that defines one or more values."
Examiner responds:
Martin indicates that metadata defines values:
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 [0012] The system conforms source system values into standardized values allowing the standardized values
The Applicant states:
“the reinsurance engine (RE), which the Office alleges corresponds to the claimed downstream system in the Examiner's interview summary.."
Examiner responds:
Applicant misinterprets the citation in the earlier Office Action. For clarification Examiner, this action states: Martin [0083] … In one aspect, the RE is configured to receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
Examiner notes for clarification that in one scenario, the “Reinsurance Engine (RE) (e.g. XLPro)” receives inputs from various upstream computer systems; not necessarily that the “Reinsurance Engine (RE) (e.g. XLPro)” is an upstream computer system.
The Applicant states:
“Martin does not disclose "meta-data that defines one or more values processed by the upstream computer system." The Office has not shown otherwise.."
Examiner responds:
Martin teaches “meta-data that defines one or more values processed by the upstream computer system”:
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 [0012] The system conforms source system values into standardized values allowing the standardized values
Martin [0083] … In one aspect, the RE is configured to receive an input of conformed financial facts derived from upstream processes
The Applicant states:
“None of cited paragraphs 81, 83, 117, or 131 disclose validating an accuracy of any of the components of the alleged upstream computer system (the CE, the RE, and the source ledger) or the components of the alleged downstream computer system (the MAT module and the general ledger)..."
Examiner responds:
Martin teaches, “validating an accuracy of any of the components”:
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... If everything is determined to be complete and accurate, then the user can approve the data for downstream processing
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights