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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on March 07, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-14 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claims 15-20 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 7, 15) recite collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. information of subject/people, surname, weights, instances, strength, and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing/matching information, evaluations (using weights and requirements), determining strength of matches, moving information around, determining/calculating risk, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (based on risk assessment/determination).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 7, 15), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic activity (mitigating/minimizing risk)); and also managing personal relationships (following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (concept preformed in the human mind by making observations and opinions about people to profile people (judgement) – and evaluating risk). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental process grouping the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)), in the context of the independent claims (1, 7, 15), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (fundamental economic activity (mitigating/minimizing risk)); and also managing personal relationships (following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (concept preformed in the human mind by making observations and opinions about people to profile people (judgement) – and evaluating risk)).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 7, 15) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 7, 15) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figure 4 and Pages 24-25 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“computer-readable storage media, processing device, database, display on a graphical user interface” (in independent claim 1); “computer-readable storage media, program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, processing device, databases, display, graphical user interface, ” (in independent claim 7); “system, memory, processors, executable instructions/modules, input interfaces, processing/user devices, databases, output interface,” (in independent claim 15)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 7, 15) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-6, 8-14, 16-20) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (2-6, 8-14, 16-20) further state using obtained data/(where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. information of subject/people, surname, weights, instances, strength, and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing/matching information, evaluations (using weights and requirements), determining strength of matches, moving information around, determining/calculating risk, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (based on risk assessment/determination). These dependent claims also cover methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic activity (mitigating/minimizing risk)); and also managing personal relationships (following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (concept preformed in the human mind by making observations and opinions about people to profile people (judgement) – and evaluating risk).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the dependent claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“program instructions, processing device, databases, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6); “program instructions, processing device, databases,” (in claim 7’s dependent claims 8-14); “system, output interface, instructions/modules, processors, display, graphical user interface, input interface,” (in claim 15’s dependent claims 16-20)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“program instructions, processing device, databases, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6); “program instructions, processing device, databases,” (in claim 7’s dependent claims 8-14); “system, output interface, instructions/modules, processors, display, graphical user interface, input interface,” (in claim 15’s dependent claims 16-20)). Hence, the additional elements (“program instructions, processing device, databases, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6); “program instructions, processing device, databases,” (in claim 7’s dependent claims 8-14); “system, output interface, instructions/modules, processors, display, graphical user interface, input interface,” (in claim 15’s dependent claims 16-20)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Also, the dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“program instructions, processing device, databases, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6); “program instructions, processing device, databases,” (in claim 7’s dependent claims 8-14); “system, output interface, instructions/modules, processors, display, graphical user interface, input interface,” (in claim 15’s dependent claims 16-20)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims (2-6, 8-14, 16-20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al., (US 2008/0319922) in view of O’Toole et al., (US 2021/0216928).
As per claim 1, Lawrence discloses a risk assessment platform (Abstract [management of risk) comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media that, based on being read and executed by a processing device, direct the processing device (figs, 13, 15-16, 41, 45-46; ¶¶ 0020 [computer executable program code residing on a computer-readable medium…etc.,], 0418-0419, 0472-0473) to:
receive an input comprising an indication of a target entity subject to a risk assessment (¶¶ 0015-0017 [includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction and structuring the information received according to political exposure risk quotient criteria…information received can be gathered electronically or manually]¸0380 [receiving name (target entity)… receive the name from the information delivery engine 3660 and/or a user device 3606 (inputted); 0459 [computer system applies an algorithm that weights the input information and calculates a risk quotient or similar rating]]; see also 0084-0086 [with 0441]);
identify, based on the input, multiple possible instances of the target entity from a database including a plurality of entities ((note according to Applicant’s specification para 0044 “instances” as associated with “name”); see Lawrence, for example, at ¶¶ 0382-0384 [variations of the received name may be compared to the stored names and/or other information…variations of the received name may, for example, be checked against stored names and/or information…variations such as language, cultural, and/or formality variations may be identified for comparison and matching purposes]);
for each possible instance of the multiple possible instances, evaluate a strength of a match of the possible instance relative to the target entity based on applying a set of criteria against the indication of the target entity; applying the set of criteria against an indication of the possible instance, and comparing results of the applications of the set of criteria (for example, ¶¶ 0384-0385 [determining if a match between the received name and any stored information…verifying any match determined…the received name and any information determined to match the received name may be further compared and/or evaluated to determine if the match was correctly identified…where a name is compared to stored names and matching database records are identified, other fields of the database records may be compared to information associated with the received name…if the compared fields also are determined to match, then the match may be verified and/or maintained…each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored (strength) to determine if a match exists…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match existing)…the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength of match)]]);
display, on a graphical user interface, a visual representation of the multiple possible instances and corresponding strengths of matches (see citations above and also see figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51; ¶¶ 0385-0390 [each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match… the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength); see with 0399, 0410-0416 [information matching engine…delivery…report…interface]], 0410-0416 [sending the name to an information matching device (e.g., information matching device 3950), at 4006…name determined at 4004 may, for example, be sent, transmitted, and/or otherwise provided to the information matching device 3950 to be analyzed for risk…the information matching device 3950 may compare the name to stored information to identify any stored information that may be associated with the name. In some embodiments, the name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]]); and
in response to a selection of one or more of the multiple possible instances, add the one or more of the multiple possible instances to a process flow (as data packets are received) associated with a further risk assessment (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0423 [screen display 4200 may include, according to some embodiments, a query section 4202, one or more data entry fields 4204, a query result section 4206, one or more query result type selection boxes 4208, an information display area…other interactive and/or informational regions that may be manipulated by a user; 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]], with 0113-0115 [information…reviewed and/or analyzed to determine if the contents of the information are likely to be relevant to risk…a relevancy metric, rank, and/or score may be determined…newly received data packet…expressed as a metric, rank, score, and/or other value…determination may be made whether to update portions of the existing data with some or all of the information in the newly received data packet (a queue associated for further risk consideration); with 0118], with 0215 [information feed 1282 includes, for example, information that is standardized, tagged, and/or scored or ranked with respect to relevancy (data packet is queued); with 0234-0235]]).
Lawrence does not explicitly state queue.
Analogous art O’Toole discloses risk assessment and data being queued (for example, see ¶¶ 0224-0228 [risk analytics…monitoring risk…processing operations on the threats…put the standard threats in scalable queue; with 0237, 0304]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Lawrence concept of data queue as taught by analogous art O’Toole in order to organize incoming information/data for optimal and scalable processing/analysis since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of O’Toole (it is old and well-known that data packets are queued as data is received) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 2, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 1, wherein the indication of the target entity comprises personal information and geographical information associated with the target entity (for example, among many, see ¶¶ 0080 [determination of risk…information associated with persons, items, organizations, relationships, events…addresses (geographical information)], 0241-0248 [various information including personal and geographical information described – e.g. person relationships, addresses, person’s name, address, occupation, age; information stored about a person may include: eye color, hair color, weight, height, passport number, driver's license number, social security number, sex, race, complexion, language(s), scars and marks, aliases, known hobbies or interests, etc.]; see also, as other examples, 0218, 0247-0248 [address…global information…country (associated with person…citizenship of person)]).
As per claim 3, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 2, wherein:
the set of criteria includes sets of weights applicable to the personal information and the geographical information associated with the target entity (¶¶ 0012 [assess risk based upon criteria…generate a risk quotient or other rating based upon a weighted algorithm], 0385 [information scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching], 0113-0115 [relevancy…data…information… relevant to risk…relevancy metric…rank and/or score], 0171-0173 [determine a relevancy score, rank, metric, and/or other value associated with relevancy…information based on…criteria; with 0177 [filter the information based on one or more criteria and/or guidelines…risk-relevant information], 0182 [overall and/or total relevancy for an item of information or packet of data. In some embodiments, any relevancy scores or metrics determined for portions of the information may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise processed to determine a relevancy…relevancy criteria]], 0191-0193, 0304-0309, 0330);
a first set of weights of the sets of weights corresponds to a commonness of a surname identified in the indications of the target entity and the multiple possible instances (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0241-0248 [person’s name; with 0242 [person table…include…person’s name; with 0258 [ fields relating to a person's name ("person_name", "person_first", "person_last", etc.)], 0218 [comparison…compares….names…to…other landowner names, employee names, criminal names, and/or other names stored within the database], 0211], 0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – similarly named table]], 0336-0338 [person table…the "person_first" field 3132 and/or the "person_last" field 3134 may include information associated with the first and/or last names of persons… linking the person table 3102 to other tables…(attaching values to names)…the association between the person and the items may facilitate the identification of risk]], see also 0340-0345 [person compared to names and addresses in determining risks]); and
a second set of weights of the sets of weights corresponds to a popularity of a domicile identified in the indications of the target entity and the multiple possible instances (¶¶ 0249-0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – nationality table, address table, country table], 0030 [aggregate…geographic relevancy and/or scope], 0340-0342 [describes risk determination when associated with an address/location]).
As per claim 14, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 7, wherein the program instructions direct the processing device to, in response to a confirmation input of a risk profile, add the risk profile to a to a process flow (as data packets are received) associated with risk profiles subject to further risk assessment (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0423 [screen display 4200 may include, according to some embodiments, a query section 4202, one or more data entry fields 4204, a query result section 4206, one or more query result type selection boxes 4208, an information display area…other interactive and/or informational regions that may be manipulated by a user; 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]], with 0113-0115 [information…reviewed and/or analyzed to determine if the contents of the information are likely to be relevant to risk…a relevancy metric, rank, and/or score may be determined…newly received data packet…expressed as a metric, rank, score, and/or other value…determination may be made whether to update portions of the existing data with some or all of the information in the newly received data packet (a queue associated for further risk consideration); with 0118], with 0215 [information feed 1282 includes, for example, information that is standardized, tagged, and/or scored or ranked with respect to relevancy (data packet is queued); with 0234-0235]]).
Lawrence does not explicitly state queue.
Analogous art O’Toole discloses risk assessment and data being queued (for example, see ¶¶ 0224-0228 [risk analytics…monitoring risk…processing operations on the threats…put the standard threats in scalable queue; with 0237, 0304]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Lawrence concept of data queue as taught by analogous art O’Toole in order to organize incoming information/data for optimal and scalable processing/analysis since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of O’Toole (it is old and well-known that data packets are queued as data is received) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al., (US 2008/0319922) in view of O’Toole et al., (US 2021/0216928), further in view of Wright et al., (US 2002/0194119).
As per claim 4, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 3, wherein to apply the set of criteria against the indication of the target entity, the program instructions direct the processing device to:
access a first database and obtain common surname data from the first database, wherein the common surname data includes lists of common surnames; determine the first set of weights for the common surname data (see citations above for claim 3 and see with ¶¶ 0241-0248 [person’s name; with 0242 [person table…include…person’s name; with 0258 [ fields relating to a person's name ("person_name", "person_first", "person_last", etc.)], 0218 [comparison…compares….names…to…other landowner names, employee names, criminal names, and/or other names stored within the database], 0211], 0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – similarly named table]], 0336-0338 [person table…the "person_first" field 3132 and/or the "person_last" field 3134 may include information associated with the first and/or last names of persons… linking the person table 3102 to other tables…(attaching values to names)…the association between the person and the items may facilitate the identification of risk]], see also 0340-0345 [person compared to names and addresses in determining risks]);
access a second database and obtain popular country data from the second database; determine the second set of weights for the popular country data instances (see citations above claim 3 and see ¶¶ 0249-0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – nationality table, address table, country table], 0030 [aggregate…geographic relevancy and/or scope], 0340-0342 [describes risk determination when associated with an address/location], 0476-0480 [criteria…country…PIP risk quotient can be calculated 4913 by weighting the information…country (e.g. G-7 country, unstable third world country, etc.,)]); and
generate the strengths of matches for the multiple possible instances of the target entity based on applying the first and second sets of weights to surnames and domiciles derived from the indications of the target entity and the multiple possible instances (¶¶ 0385-0390 [each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match… the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength); see with 0399, 0410-0416 [information matching engine…delivery…report…interface]]; see with figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51 [user interfaces to display information]; name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]).
Neither Lawrence nor O’Toole explicitly disclose profiling people/humans (for risk determination) based on ethnic groups/ethnicity.
Analogous art Wright discloses profiling people/humans (for risk determination) based on ethnic groups/ethnicity (for example, see 0148 [individual risk fraud assessment…weight factors; with 0235 [determine ethnicity…common surnames (e.g. determine Eastern European origin…process can determine that a received first name value appears to be a Eastern European name)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lawrence in view of O’Toole concept of profiling people/humans (for “risk” determination) based on ethnic/racial groups as taught by analogous art Wright in order to make abstract and systematic assessments of “risk” based on one groups negative or positive opinion on another groups and selectively deciding one ethnic/racial group is more “risky” than another since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wright (ethnic/racial profiling to negatively/positively label people/humans based on ethnicity/race is a very old and well-known technique practiced throughout human history – as stated in Wright and also shown in various articles, for example, see “Pap, Andras. "Ethno-Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement: Concepts and Recommendations." European Yearbook on Human Rights. Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (NWV) 2009 (2009): 285-296 (see discussion below under Conclusion)”) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 6, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further direct the processing device to, in response to a dismissal input of one or more other possible instances of the multiple possible instances, updating metadata associated with the one or more other possible instances with respect to the target entity (¶¶ 0097 [relevancy to risk…not relevant…filtered out and/or deleted or removed (dismissed and then database is updated); with 0113-0115 [ranked or scored lower than a pre-determined threshold may, according to some embodiments, be filtered, removed, and/or deleted…update existing data; with 0177-0178 [data…removed, deleted, and/or otherwise discarded…database…updated]]], 0193-0194 [data…deleted and/or removed… filtered out and/or otherwise removed…reviewer]).
Neither Lawrence nor O’Toole explicitly state indicate the one or more other possible instances as false positive instances.
Analogous art Wright indicate the one or more other possible instances as false positive instances (¶¶ 0037, 0105-0110 [false positive ratio reflects the number of false alarms incurred from a test for every correct fraud detection from the same test, and is typically used by merchants to adjust their transaction rejection thresholds…strikes an optimal balance between risk detection power and false positive avoidance at realistic levels of attempted fraud across a wide range of decision threshold values…if the ongoing transaction data indicated that a false positive ratio for a given test has changed, the risk penalty p.sub.i is also updated]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lawrence in view of O’Toole indicate the one or more other possible instances as false positive instances as taught by analogous art Wright in order to for optimal decision-making and reduce/minimize errors (increase accuracy) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wright (it is old and well-known to take false-positive into account and risk assessments to increase accuracy of results) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al., (US 2008/0319922) in view of O’Toole et al., (US 2021/0216928), further in view of Wright et al., (US 2002/0194119), further in view of Zuleba (US 2006/0026156).
As per claim 5, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 4, wherein, for each possible instance, evaluating the strength of a match for the possible instance comprises identifying a combination of various information in the indication of the possible instance and applying a weight based on the combination to the results of the application of the criteria (¶¶ 0385-0390 [each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match… the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength); see with 0399, 0410-0416 [information matching engine…delivery…report…interface]]; see with figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51 [user interfaces to display information]; name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]).
Neither Lawrence nor O’Toole nor Wright disclose information being a missing date of birth and a missing gender.
Analogous art Zuleba discloses strength of match which also comprises a missing date of birth and a missing gender (for example, see ¶¶ 0072-0075 [specifically see Tables 6-7 [which show missing date of birth having an effect on matching and missing gender having an effect on matching]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lawrence in view of O’Toole further in view of Wright taking into account a missing date of birth and a missing gender as taught by analogous art Wright in order to for efficient risk analysis and optimal decision-making since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Zuleba (it is old and well-known to take missing information (birth date, gender) into account when comparing/matching individual/people information through databases in various industry and applications to get accurate matches) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al., (US 2008/0319922), further in view of Wright et al., (US 2002/0194119).
As per claim 19, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment system of claim 15, wherein the modules executed by the processor further include a false positive analyzer module configured to:
receive the risk and governance data associated with the entity from the input interface (¶¶ 0015-0017 [includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction and structuring the information received according to political exposure risk quotient criteria…information received can be gathered electronically or manually]¸0380 [receiving name (target entity)… receive the name from the information delivery engine 3660 and/or a user device 3606 (inputted); 0459 [computer system applies an algorithm that weights the input information and calculates a risk quotient or similar rating]]; see also 0084-0086 [with 0441]);
identify multiple possible instances of the target entity from the risk and governance data ((note according to Applicant’s specification para 0044 “instances” as associated with “name”); see citations above for claim 7-9 and 15 and see Lawrence, for example, at ¶¶ 0382-0384 [variations of the received name may be compared to the stored names and/or other information…variations of the received name may, for example, be checked against stored names and/or information…variations such as language, cultural, and/or formality variations may be identified for comparison and matching purposes]);
for each possible instance of the multiple possible instances, evaluate a strength of a match of the possible instance to the target entity based on applying a set of criteria against the indication of the target entity and comparing results of the application of the set of criteria with an indication of the possible instance (for example, ¶¶ 0384-0385 [determining if a match between the received name and any stored information…verifying any match determined…the received name and any information determined to match the received name may be further compared and/or evaluated to determine if the match was correctly identified…where a name is compared to stored names and matching database records are identified, other fields of the database records may be compared to information associated with the received name…if the compared fields also are determined to match, then the match may be verified and/or maintained…each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored (strength) to determine if a match exists…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match existing)…the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength of match)]]); and
for each possible instance of the multiple possible instances having a strength of a match below a threshold level, update metadata of the possible instance (see citations above and see citations for claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15 and see ¶¶ 0172 [relevancy score or metric that falls below a certain threshold…may be removed, deleted, and/or otherwise discarded], 0097 [relevancy to risk…not relevant…filtered out and/or deleted or removed (dismissed and then database is updated); with 0113-0115 [ranked or scored lower than a pre-determined threshold may, according to some embodiments, be filtered, removed, and/or deleted…update existing data; with 0177-0178 [data…removed, deleted, and/or otherwise discarded…database…updated]]], 0193-0194 [data…deleted and/or removed… filtered out and/or otherwise removed…reviewer]).
Lawrence does not explicitly state indicate the possible instance as a false positive instance with respect to the target entity.
Analogous art Wright discloses indicate the possible instance as a false positive instance with respect to the target entity (¶¶ 0037, 0105-0110 [false positive ratio reflects the number of false alarms incurred from a test for every correct fraud detection from the same test, and is typically used by merchants to adjust their transaction rejection thresholds…strikes an optimal balance between risk detection power and false positive avoidance at realistic levels of attempted fraud across a wide range of decision threshold values…if the ongoing transaction data indicated that a false positive ratio for a given test has changed, the risk penalty p.sub.i is also updated]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lawrence indicate the possible instance as a false positive instance with respect to the target entity as taught by analogous art Wright in order to for optimal decision-making and reduce/minimize errors (increase accuracy) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wright (it is old and well-known to take false-positive into account and risk assessments to increase accuracy of results) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 20, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment system of claim 19, wherein the modules executed by the processor further include a visualization module configured to receive indications of the strengths of matches of the multiple possible instances and display, on a graphical user interface, indications of the multiple possible instances and the indications of the strengths of matches (see citations above and also see figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51; ¶¶ 0385-0390 [each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match…the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength); see with 0399, 0410-0416 [information matching engine…delivery…report…interface]], 0410-0416 [sending the name to an information matching device (e.g., information matching device 3950), at 4006…name determined at 4004 may, for example, be sent, transmitted, and/or otherwise provided to the information matching device 3950 to be analyzed for risk…the information matching device 3950 may compare the name to stored information to identify any stored information that may be associated with the name….the name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]]; see also 0423 [screen display 4200 may include, according to some embodiments, a query section 4202, one or more data entry fields 4204, a query result section 4206, one or more query result type selection boxes 4208, an information display area…other interactive and/or informational regions that may be manipulated by a user; 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]], with 0113-0115 [information…reviewed and/or analyzed to determine if the contents of the information are likely to be relevant to risk…a relevancy metric, rank, and/or score may be determined…newly received data packet…expressed as a metric, rank, score, and/or other value…determination may be made whether to update portions of the existing data with some or all of the information in the newly received data packet (a queue associated for further risk consideration); with 0118], with 0215 [information feed 1282 includes, for example, information that is standardized, tagged, and/or scored or ranked with respect to relevancy (data packet is queued); with 0234-0235]]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawrence et al., (US 2008/0319922).
As per claim 7, Lawrence discloses a risk assessment platform comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media that, based on being read and executed by a processing device, direct the processing device (figs, 13, 15-16, 41, 45-46; ¶¶ 0020 [computer executable program code residing on a computer-readable medium…etc.,], 0418-0419, 0472-0473) to:
receive an input comprising an indication of a target entity subject to a risk assessment (¶¶ 0015-0017 [includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction and structuring the information received according to political exposure risk quotient criteria…information received can be gathered electronically or manually]¸0380 [receiving name (target entity)… receive the name from the information delivery engine 3660 and/or a user device 3606 (inputted); 0459 [computer system applies an algorithm that weights the input information and calculates a risk quotient or similar rating]]; see also 0084-0086 [with 0441]);
identify, based on the input, multiple possible instances of the target entity from a database including a plurality of entities ((note according to Applicant’s specification para 0044 “instances” as associated with “name”); see Lawrence, for example, at ¶¶ 0382-0384 [variations of the received name may be compared to the stored names and/or other information…variations of the received name may, for example, be checked against stored names and/or information…variations such as language, cultural, and/or formality variations may be identified for comparison and matching purposes]);
display, on a graphical user interface, a visual representation of the multiple possible instances, corresponding strengths of matches relative to the target entity, and corresponding risk profiles (¶¶ 0385-0390 [each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match… the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength); see with 0399, 0410-0416 [information matching engine…delivery…report…interface]]; see with figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51 [user interfaces to display information]; name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]); and
in response to a selection of a risk profile of one of the multiple possible instances, display, on the graphical user interface, a visual representation of a risk assessment generated for the risk profile based on performing a risk analysis on data associated with the risk profile accessed through one or more databases (see citations above and also see figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51; ¶¶ 0410-0416 [sending the name to an information matching device (e.g., information matching device 3950), at 4006…name determined at 4004 may, for example, be sent, transmitted, and/or otherwise provided to the information matching device 3950 to be analyzed for risk…the information matching device 3950 may compare the name to stored information to identify any stored information that may be associated with the name….name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]]),
wherein the visual representation of the risk assessment includes an indication of a threat confidence level associated with the risk profile (¶¶ 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level); with 0456-0459 [PIP system…reporting…creating…report; with 0466 [risk quotient 4703 can subsequently be made available by the PIP system…real time assessment]], 0418 [reporting device…interface…GUI interface], 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]]]).
As per claim 8, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 7, wherein the indication of the target entity comprises personal information and geographical information associated with the target entity (for example, among many, see ¶¶ 0080 [determination of risk…information associated with persons, items, organizations, relationships, events…addresses (geographical information)], 0241-0248 [various information including personal and geographical information described – e.g. person relationships, addresses, person’s name, address, occupation, age; information stored about a person may include: eye color, hair color, weight, height, passport number, driver's license number, social security number, sex, race, complexion, language(s), scars and marks, aliases, known hobbies or interests, etc.]; see also, as other examples, 0218, 0247-0248 [address…global information…country (associated with person…citizenship of person)]).
As per claim 9, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 7, wherein the program instructions direct the processing device to determine the strengths of matches of the multiple possible instances relative to the target entity based on applying a set of criteria against the indication of the target entity and comparing results of the application of the set of criteria with the indications of the multiple possible instances (for example, ¶¶ 0384-0385 [determining if a match between the received name and any stored information…verifying any match determined…the received name and any information determined to match the received name may be further compared and/or evaluated to determine if the match was correctly identified…where a name is compared to stored names and matching database records are identified, other fields of the database records may be compared to information associated with the received name…if the compared fields also are determined to match, then the match may be verified and/or maintained…each and/or every comparison between the received name and the stored information may be scored (strength) to determine if a match exists…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match existing)…the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match (strength of match)]]).
As per claim 10, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the risk profile comprises corruption perception index data and politically-exposed persons data (for example, see ¶¶ 0005-0008 [politically identified person (PIP)…PIPs can include an elected official, a bureaucrat, a political appointee, a World Bank Official, a military person, or other individual associated with a sovereign power or international organization. In addition, a PIP can be a person who holds a position in the private sector wherein the position is associated with politically sensitive influences…political corruption; with 0015 [involving a politically identified person…includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person…political exposure risk quotient criteria; with 0455 [report…corrupt practices, bribery, embargoes and sanctions]]]).
As per claim 11, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 10, wherein to perform the risk analysis on the data, the program instructions direct the processing device to: identify a subset of records of the data having associated values; convert the values associated with the subset of records from a first format to a second format (see citations above for claims 7-10 and see Abstract [delivering the matching name and a suggested action to a user interface in a format based on a user preference and a user device configuration]; ¶¶ 0085 [information is formatted], 0096 [with 0129-0134 [tool then collects the information from each page and outputs the information as a formatted data packet…forwards any extracted information to the information translation device 418 for any required and/or desired formatting, conversion, and/or standardization…translate the received information from one or more…other types of formats, into one or more desirable and/or useful formats,]]; and
generate sets of weights for the data, wherein the sets of weights comprises a first set of weights including the converted values, and a second set of weights; and apply the sets of weights to the data (¶¶ 0012 [assess risk based upon criteria…generate a risk quotient or other rating based upon a weighted algorithm], 0385 [information scored…each matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching], 0113-0115 [relevancy…data…information… relevant to risk…relevancy metric…rank and/or score], 0171-0173 [determine a relevancy score, rank, metric, and/or other value associated with relevancy…information based on…criteria; with 0177 [filter the information based on one or more criteria and/or guidelines…risk-relevant information], 0182 [overall and/or total relevancy for an item of information or packet of data. In some embodiments, any relevancy scores or metrics determined for portions of the information may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise processed to determine a relevancy…relevancy criteria]], 0249-0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – nationality table, address table, country table], 0030 [aggregate…geographic relevancy and/or scope], 0340-0342 [describes risk determination when associated with an address/location]; see also 0191-0193, 0304-0309, 0330);
As per claim 12, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 7, wherein the threat confidence level corresponds to a level of confidence of corruption with respect to performing financial transactions with the entity (for example, see ¶¶ 0015 [managing risk related to financial transactions involving a politically identified person, the method includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction; with 0019 [aggregating risk quotients relating to a financial institution to assess a level of politically identified risk to which the financial institution is exposed]], 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level); with 0473 [managing risk associated with financial transactions with political exposure ], 0452-0459 [regarding financial institution, financial accounts, and financial transactions – PIP system…reporting…creating…report; with 0466 [risk quotient 4703 can subsequently be made available by the PIP system…real time assessment]], 0418 [reporting device…interface…GUI interface], 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]]]).
As per claim 13, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment platform of claim 12, wherein the program instructions direct the processing device to output an alert indication based on determining that the threat confidence level exceeds a threshold level (see citations above for claims 7-9 and 11-12 and see ¶¶ 0385 [score…exceeds a pre-determined value; with 0460 [exceeds risk quotient threshold…generating alerts…notifying], with 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level)], with 0087 [identified risk…alerts…provided to, transmitted to, sent to, and/or otherwise made available to one or more of the user devices]]).
As per claim 15, Lawrence discloses a risk assessment system comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled with executable instructions forming modules of the risk assessment system and configured to execute the modules of the risk assessment system to produce a risk assessment (figs, 13, 15-16, 41, 45-46; ¶¶ 0012-0014 [discusses risk assessment], 0020 [computerized system for managing risk], 0074-0075 [network, computer, memory, processor etc.,] 0418-0419, 0441-0444 [shows the system and the computing devices, memories, network, etc.,], 0472-0473), wherein the modules executed by the processor include:
an input interface configured to obtain, from one or more databases, risk and governance data associated with an entity subject to the risk assessment, and obtain, from a user device, an input comprising an indication of a target entity (¶¶ 0125 [control mechanism and/or control inputs (shown as the information aggregation manager 412) that allow an operator of the system 400 to configure the operation of the system], 0440-0441, 0453 [PIP system…responsive to…input…information gathered electronically…databases; with 0236-0237 [delivery engine 1560 pulls the information directly from the database…information delivery engine 1560 includes any type of user and/or user device 1506 interface…include a web interface that provides query results and/or other stored information to the user device 1506 via the information path 1588h]]; see with 0015-0017 [includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction and structuring the information received according to political exposure risk quotient criteria…information received can be gathered electronically or manually]¸0380 [receiving name (target entity)…receive the name from the information delivery engine 3660 and/or a user device 3606 (inputted); 0459 [computer system applies an algorithm that weights the input information and calculates a risk quotient or similar rating]]; see also 0084-0086 [with 0441]);
an output interface configured to output the risk assessment of the target entity (see citations above for claims 1 and 7 and also see ¶¶ 0236 [information delivery engine 1560 may be or include a web interface that provides query results and/or other stored information to the user device 1506 via the information path 1588h], 0129 [tool then collects the information from each page and outputs the information as a formatted data packet; see with 0440-0441 [output device…display], 0472]);
a data processing module (see citations above) configured to:
receive the risk and governance data associated with the target entity from the input interface and identify a subset of records having associated values (see citations above and see, for example, at ¶¶ 0382-0384 [variations of the received name may be compared to the stored names and/or other information…variations of the received name may, for example, be checked against stored names and/or information…variations such as language, cultural, and/or formality variations may be identified for comparison and matching purposes; with 0008-0012 [ information that needs to be considered to evaluate whether an individual is a PIP, and whether a particular PIP poses a significant risk…guidelines…guidance be integrated…facilitating analysis and quantification of risk associated with politically exposed persons…automated political risk management system maintains a database relating individuals to politically sensitive positions and world events…rating system is used to assess risk based upon criteria]], 0014-0020);
convert the values associated with the subset of records of the risk and governance data from a first format to a second format (see citations above and see with, for example, Abstract [delivering the matching name and a suggested action to a user interface in a format based on a user preference and a user device configuration]; ¶¶ 0085 [information is formatted], 0096 [with 0129-0134 [tool then collects the information from each page and outputs the information as a formatted data packet…forwards any extracted information to the information translation device 418 for any required and/or desired formatting, conversion, and/or standardization…translate the received information from one or more…other types of formats, into one or more desirable and/or useful formats,]]); and
provide the converted values to a weight generation module; the weight generation module configured to: receive the risk and governance data and the converted values from the data processing module; generate a set of weights for the risk and governance data, wherein the set of weights comprises a first subset of weights including the converted values, and a second subset of weights; and provide the set of weights to a scoring module (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0012 [assess risk based upon criteria…generate a risk quotient or other rating based upon a weighted algorithm], 0385 [matching field, attribute, and/or relation may, for example, by scored and/or weighed based on a likelihood of matching (e.g., the score may be associated with a probability of a match existing). In some embodiments, the scores may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise manipulated to determine an overall or total score or rank associated with a match], 0113-0115 [relevancy…data…information… relevant to risk…relevancy metric…rank and/or score], 0171-0173 [determine a relevancy score, rank, metric, and/or other value associated with relevancy…information based on…criteria; with 0177 [filter the information based on one or more criteria and/or guidelines…risk-relevant information], 0182 [overall and/or total relevancy for an item of information or packet of data. In some embodiments, any relevancy scores or metrics determined for portions of the information may be added, averaged, and/or otherwise processed to determine a relevancy…relevancy criteria]], 0249-0250 [comparison/matching using similarity and deviation from – nationality table, address table, country table], 0030 [aggregate…geographic relevancy and/or scope], 0340-0342 [describes risk determination when associated with an address/location]; see also 0191-0193, 0304-0309, 0330); and
the threat detection module configured to: generate the risk assessment of the target entity based on applying the set of weights to the risk and governance data (see citations above and see, for example, ¶¶ 452-0455 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk associated with a PIP…the risk quotient can be based upon a weighted algorithm applied to the criteria], 0479 [ PIP risk quotient can be calculated 4913 by weighting the information received according to its importance in determining the likelihood of illegal or unethical dealings. Calculating a PIP risk quotient can be accomplished by assigning a numerical value to each field of information, wherein the numerical value is representative of the risk associated with a particular piece of information]); and
provide the risk assessment to the output interface (see citations above and also see figs. 2 [elements 260 (information delivery engine sending for display on user devices 206) and 206a-n], 15 [elements 1560 (with fig. 39 showing detail of information delivery engine with reports) and 1506], 50-51; ¶¶ 0410-0416 [sending the name to an information matching device (e.g., information matching device 3950), at 4006…name determined at 4004 may, for example, be sent, transmitted, and/or otherwise provided to the information matching device 3950 to be analyzed for risk…the information matching device 3950 may compare the name to stored information to identify any stored information that may be associated with the name….name may be evaluated for risk by the information matching…information matching engine…delivery…report…interface] with 0421-0428 [user interfaces and displaying of information (e.g. results to be formatted and/or presented in different ways (e.g., the results are presented in their entirety, as a list, a watch list, a government list, etc.)); with, for example, 0428 [screen display 4200 may also or alternatively include a risk code field…analyzed risk…display field include…information matching; see with 0384-0385 [discussion provided above regarding strength of match]]]).
As per claim 16, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment system of claim 15, wherein the risk assessment includes a threat confidence level associated with the risk profile (¶¶ 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level); with 0456-0459 [PIP system…reporting…creating…report; with 0466 [risk quotient 4703 can subsequently be made available by the PIP system…real time assessment]], 0418 [reporting device…interface…GUI interface], 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]]]), and
wherein the threat confidence level corresponds to a level of confidence of corruption with respect to performing financial transactions with the entity (¶¶ 0015 [managing risk related to financial transactions involving a politically identified person, the method includes receiving information relating to political exposure associated with a person involved in a financial transaction; with 0019 [aggregating risk quotients relating to a financial institution to assess a level of politically identified risk to which the financial institution is exposed]], 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level); with 0473 [managing risk associated with financial transactions with political exposure ], 0452-0459 [regarding financial institution, financial accounts, and financial transactions – PIP system…reporting…creating…report; with 0466 [risk quotient 4703 can subsequently be made available by the PIP system…real time assessment]], 0418 [reporting device…interface…GUI interface], 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]]]).
As per claim 17, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment system of claim 16, wherein the output interface is further configured to output an alert indication responsive to determining that the threat confidence level exceeds a threshold level (see citations above for claims 7-9 and 15 and see ¶¶ 0385 [score…exceeds a pre-determined value; with 0460 [exceeds risk quotient threshold…generating alerts…notifying], with 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level)], with 0087 [identified risk…alerts…provided to, transmitted to, sent to, and/or otherwise made available to one or more of the user devices]]).
As per claim 18, Lawrence discloses the risk assessment system of claim 16, wherein the modules executed by the processor further include a visualization module configured to receive the risk assessment and display, on a graphical user interface, a visual representation of a risk assessment including a visual indication of the threat confidence level (see citations above for claim 7 and 15; and see ¶¶ 0452 [risk quotient or other rating can be generated to readily indicate a level of risk (confidence level); with 0456-0459 [PIP system…reporting…creating…report; with 0466 [risk quotient 4703 can subsequently be made available by the PIP system…real time assessment]], 0418 [reporting device…interface…GUI interface], 0071 [graphical user interface useful for presenting reports…PIP; with 0422-0426 [screen…information display…user…selection]]]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Pap, Andras. "Ethno-Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement: Concepts and Recommendations.” European Yearbook on Human Rights. Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (NWV) 2009 (2009): 285-296: Specifically pages 286-291 discusses adoption of directly or indirectly discriminatory legislation or regulations notably on grounds of nationality, national or ethnic origin and religion and, more often, discriminatory practices. Desire within law enforcement to minimize human decision-making and to deploy automated investigating or screening processes brought a revitalization of formerly discredited measures, such as profiling – with development of information technologies (IT) enables the interconnection of various commercial and law enforcement databases, and the combination of formerly independent data sources. The proliferation of the biometrics industry, which curtails the involvement of human participation and control in decision making, along recent trends of outsourcing traditional state competencies to the private sector, create endless possibilities for inter-operability. In making use of these, however, civil and law enforcement agencies may escape effective parliamentary scrutiny and control. The concerns are echoed by the European Parliament’s draft recommendation to the Council on the problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control. The European Parliament was concerned that the collection of personal data of passengers travelling to the EU could provide a basis for profiling, including on the basis of race or ethnicity, since it envisages “running the PNR data of passengers against a combination of characteristics and behavioral patterns, aimed at creating a risk-assessment” and states that “when a passenger fits within a certain risk-assessment, then he could be identified as a high-risk passenger.” Set of operations, usually referred to as data mining, which is carried out by statistical methods and whose purpose is to establish, with a certain margin of error, correlations between certain observable variables. The concrete outcome of this stage is a mechanism whereby individuals are categorized on the basis of some of their observable characteristics in order to infer, with a certain margin of error, others that are not observable. Profiling is widely used in the field of risk management, when determining the characteristics of high-risk customers. Such aims may include the adjustment of insurance premiums; prevention of arrears; aid to payment decisions where current account overdrafts exceed the authorized limit in the banking sector; use of a risk “score” in order to offer individual customers the most appropriate loan or refuse a loan; or, for example, “racial profiling refers to the use by the police of generalizations based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin, rather than individual behavior, specific suspect descriptions or accumulated intelligence, as the basis for suspicion in directing discretionary law enforcement actions such as stops, identity checks, questioning, or searches among other tactics.”
Grant, JR et al., (US 20050267827): Provides for evaluating anti-money laundering risk may include identifying a person or other legal entity to be evaluated. A country may be selected associated with the person or other legal entity. At least one financial product or financial instrument associated with the person or other legal entity may be selected. The method may also include selecting a customer type associated with the person or other legal entity. A risk rating may be determined based on responses to predetermined criteria related to the selected country, the at least one selected financial product and the selected customer type.
Ludlow et al., (US 2009/0050692): Discusses the candidate score for each identified candidate is the aggregate result of a multi-factored test. For example, the candidate score may be the aggregate of one or more scores relating to the identified candidate's gender, date of birth (DOB), physical description, or other identifying aspect. In some embodiments, fuzzy matching techniques may be used in calculating the candidate score for each identified candidate. For example, a candidate DOB that exactly matches the DOB provided by the decoded identification information may receive a higher score than a candidate DOB that matches the day and month yet does not match the year of the DOB provided by the decoded identification information. Further describes the candidate score includes a score that is calculated according to the frequency of the candidate's name within a population. For example, a candidate name having a high frequency within a population (e.g., John Smith) may receive a lower score than a candidate name having a low frequency within the population.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights