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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received July 03, 2025. No Claim(s) have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 19259145 filed 07/03/2025 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63667457 , filed 07/03/2024
Applicant Name/Assignee: Closerly Inc
Inventor(s): Mag, Adrian; Angelidis, Jim
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 07/04/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 3C ref # 320. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the specification the examiner is interpreting the limitation “input signals” to include data relevant to risk assessment such as income, liabilities, credit and transaction histories (¶0065)
In light of the specification the examiner is interpreting the limitation “primary signals” are interpreted to be electronic data content received from primary systems and the limitation “secondary signals” interpreted to be electronic data content received form secondary systems. The specification describes “primary systems” as external sources with high data credibility such as “credit bureaus”, “tax authorities”, “banking systems”, whereas “secondary systems” refer to other sources of information which may include information provided by applicant, personal references, employment verification and rental history (¶ 0130).
In light of the specification, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “physical asset signals” to be asset value, asset location, asset purchase
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 instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claim(s) 1-9:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) receiving …plurality of signal corresponding to client identifier (2) analyzing …corresponding record to extract a corresponding second record by implementing a plurality of pre-defined tags (3) verifying corresponding second record by comparing signal subset form plurality of primary signals to secondary signal subset to generate verified signal when matched (4) segregating plurality of signals to generate categorized record corresponding to predefined tag (5) receiving physical asset signals associated with identifier (6) generating qualifier score (7) determining whether score meets threshold range. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial activity. The specification discloses that traditional systems rely on single point in time data chick where forms can be forged or fraudulent data submitted (¶ 0004). The specification discloses receiving inputs corresponding to identifiers, analyzing records to extract corresponding second record by implementing tags and generated categorized records, receiving assets signals/data and generating a score according to a threshold (¶ 0015) for risk assessment. Such analysis of data is directed toward the abstract category of fundamental economic practices.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “computing network” and “host processor.”
The claimed “host processor” applied to perform the operational steps of “receiving …input signals (data)” and “receiving …physical asset signals (data)”, which according to the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations of “receiving …input signals (data)” and “receiving …physical asset signals (data)” are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “host processor” is applied to perform operations steps “analyzing…first record”, “verifying …corresponding second record”, “generating…a score” and “determining whether …score meets …threshold range” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components for the purpose of analyzing financial transaction data to mitigate fraud. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as an ordered combination or as a whole, the combination of limitations, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-3 are directed toward applying technology to perform the operational steps of analyzing and verifying records received for use in a transaction analysis process to mitigate risk. The combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-6 are directed toward segregating primary signals (data) to generate a categorized record of limitations 1-3 and receiving physical asset signals (data) applied to generate a qualifier score. The combination of limitations 1-6 and 7 is directed toward determining whether the score generated of steps 1-6 meets a threshold range which the specification has identified as a risk measurement.
When considered as a whole or ordered combination the combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward analyzing information received and verifying records analyzed applied to generate score for risk measurement- which as a whole is directed toward a commercial activity and risk mitigation.
The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2, but instead a process to analyze received record data that is verified against a second record which is used with received asset data associated with an identifier in order to generate a score with a determined threshold range measuring risk mitigation. MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h). The claim limitations as a whole, as an ordered combination and the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited by the host processor in the claims recite the concept of analyzing records for generating a risk score measurement. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, or as a combination, the operation performed by the host processor and communication unit at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The host processor claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “host processor”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “computing network” and “host processor.”
The “computing network” does not positively recite performing any of the steps of the claimed limitations, instead the computing network is nominally mentioned as a means the host processor send/receive data.
The additional element beyond the abstract idea “host processor” is applied at a high level to perform the operations for generating a score “receiving …input signals (data)”, “analyzing…record ”, “verifying…record”, “segregating…plurality of primary signals (data) to generate categorized record”, “receiving…physical asset signals (data)”, “generating…score” and “determining…score meets…threshold range”- are some of the most basic functions of a computer Taking the claim limitations performed by the “host processor” separately, the function performed at each step of the process is purely generic with high level functions with expected outcomes.
The claim limitations in reference to Alice determination that limitations applied by technology is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea. Limitations to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry does not qualify. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the host processor as claimed offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that “host processor” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because as a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward receiving input signal/data, analyzing and verifying records used with received asset signals/data to determine a score representing likelihood of risk. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)…Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receiving”, “analyzing”, “verifying”, “segregating”, “receiving”, “generating” and “determining” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming and hardware. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
[0061] The system representation shown in FIG. 1 A is provided as an embodiment.
There may be variations in the combination or number of such components, and in some
cases, a single device may provide the functions of multiple components. For example,
while FIG. 1A shows two external systems 120, 130, the system 100 may be in
communication with fewer or greater number of such external systems over a wide
geographic area via the network 102. Furthermore, while the external systems 120 and
130 are shown as separate components, in some cases, they can be the same devices
performing both data provision and reception functions.
[0062] The score estimation device 104 includes a processor 112, a data storage 114
and a communication component 116. The score estimation device 104 can be
implemented with more than one computer server distributed over a wide geographic
area and connected via the network 104. The processor 112, data storage 114 and
communication component 116 may be combined into a fewer number of components or
may be separated into further components. The score estimation device 104 is configured
to continuously retrieve data, and perform data extraction, categorization, and predictive
risk assessment.
[0063] The processor 112 can be implemented with any suitable processor, controller,
digital signal processor, graphics processing unit, application specific integrated circuits
(ASICs), and/or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) that can provide sufficient
processing power for the configuration, purposes and requirements of the score
estimation device 104. The processor 112 can include more than one processor with
each processor being configured to perform different dedicated tasks.
[0064] The processor 112 can be configured to control the operation of the score
estimation device 104. For example, the processor 112 can execute instructions to
manage data retrieval from external systems, providing continuous updates and accurate
data acquisition. The processor 112 can also extract data by applying predefined tags to
categorize relevant information. Further, the processor 112 can execute the predictive
algorithms that analyze the categorized data to generate qualifier scores.
[0069] The external systems 120, 130 can include a processor and memory, and may
be an electronic tablet device, a personal computer, workstation, server, portable
computer, mobile device, personal digital assistant, laptop, smartphone, WAP phone, an
interactive television, video display terminals, gaming consoles, portable electronic
devices, or any combination of these. These external systems 120, 130 are designed to
interact with the score estimation device 104 to provide and receive data necessary for
financial risk assessments. For instance, the external system 120 can be associated with
a bank, providing access to detailed financial records, including transaction histories,
account balances, and income details.
[0070] The network 102 can include any network capable of carrying data, including
the Internet, Ethernet, plain old telephone service (POTS) line, public switch telephone
network (PSTN), integrated services digital network (ISDN), digital subscriber line (DSL),
coaxial cable, fiber optics, satellite, mobile, wireless (e.g. Wi-Fi, WiMAX), SS7 signaling
network, fixed line, local area network, wide area network, and others, including any
combination of these, capable of interfacing with, and enabling communication between,
the score estimation device 104, the external systems 120 and 130, and the external data
storage 1 08 and the user terminal 106.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward normalizing data categories based on completeness check on data categories, determining missing data value, entering corresponding data, determining missing data value when corresponding data unavailable – mere data manipulation - See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h). Dependent claim 3 is directed toward limiting external systems to employment data servers, financial institution servers, credit reporting servers, estate servers, criminal records server and client data server- well understood and routine. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward scanning input signals to extract identified information, storing identified information – insignificant extra solution activity and well understood. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward limiting predefined tags to include asset tag, liability tag, transaction tag- directed toward labeling data categories- well understood in the art. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward data categories include asset category, liability category and income category- mere data organization See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Dependent claim 7 is directed toward physical asset signals include “location data”, “asset market value”, “transaction date”, “rental value” – associated financial data content. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward input signals received from plurality of external systems by API -well understood application of interface data. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward input signals received on JSON file- well understood routine application of technology.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 10-18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a device, as in independent Claim 10 and the dependent claims. Such devices fall under the statutory category of “machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Device claim 10 to perform the functions (1) receive …signal inputs (data) corresponding to identifier (2) extract second record (3) verify corresponding second record (4) receive physical asset signals associated with identifier (5) generate score, (6) determine whether score meets threshold range. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial activity. The specification discloses that traditional systems rely on single point in time data chick where forms can be forged or fraudulent data submitted (¶ 0004). The specification discloses receiving inputs corresponding to identifiers, analyzing records to extract corresponding second record by implementing tags and generated categorized records, receiving assets signals/data and generating a score according to a threshold (¶ 0015) for risk assessment. Such analysis of data is directed toward the abstract category of fundamental economic practices.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “device” comprising “reception module”, “data extraction module”, “data verification module”, “score calculation module” and “threshold determination module”
The claimed “reception” applied to perform the operational steps of “receive …input signals (data)” and “receive …physical asset signals (data)”, The additional element reception module to perform the operations “receive” of “receive …input signals (data)” and “receive …physical asset signals (data)” are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “data extraction module” is applied to perform the function “extract …record”, which according to the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The additional element “data verification module” applied to “verify …record”
The additional element “score calculation module” applied to generate a score.
The additional element “determine whether score meets threshold range”
The additional modular element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea at a high level with an expected outcome. Therefore, the recited high-level functions amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components for the purpose of analyzing financial transaction data to mitigate fraud. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as an ordered combination or as a whole, the combination of limitations, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-3 are directed toward applying technology to perform the operational steps of receiving, extracting and verifying records received for use in a transaction analysis process to mitigate risk applying different modules that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply technology to perform the data analysis. The combination of limitations 4-6 are directed toward receiving physical asset data and verified data of limitations 1-3 to generate a score representing likelihood of risk. The combination of limitations 1-6 and 7 is directed toward determining whether the score generated of steps 1-6 meets a threshold range which the specification has identified as a risk measurement.
When considered as a whole or ordered combination the combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward analyzing information received and verifying records analyzed applied to generate score for risk measurement- which as a whole is directed toward a commercial activity and risk mitigation.
The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2, but instead a process to analyze received record data that is verified against a second record which is used with received asset data associated with an identifier in order to generate a score with a determined threshold range measuring risk mitigation. MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h). The claim limitations as a whole, as an ordered combination and the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited by the host processor in the claims recite the concept of analyzing records for generating a risk score measurement. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, or as a combination, the operation performed by the host processor and communication unit at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The device modules claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “device” “modules”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “device” comprising “reception module”, “data extraction module”, “data verification module”, “score calculation module” and “threshold determination module”
The additional element beyond the abstract idea “reception module” is applied at a high level to perform the operations for generating a score “receiving …input signals (data)”, and “receiving…physical asset signals (data) – insignificant extra solution activity. The additional modules (“data extraction module”, “data verification module”, “score calculation module” and “threshold determination module”) amount to no more than mere instructions to perform basic device operations “extract”, “verify”, “generate score” and “determine…score meets…threshold range”- are some of the most basic functions of a computer Taking the claim limitations performed by the “host processor” separately, the function performed at each step of the process is purely generic with high level functions with expected outcomes.
The claim limitations in reference to Alice determination that limitations applied by technology is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea. Limitations to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry does not qualify. As a result, none of the modules recited by the device as claimed offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the analysis of data for use in calculating risk score to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that “device” “modules” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because as a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward receiving input signal/data, extracting and verifying records used with received asset signals/data to determine a score representing likelihood of risk. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)…Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receiving”, “extracting”, “verifying”, “receiving” “generating” and “determining” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming and hardware. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides evidence of the “apply” it of the modules to implement the abstract idea rather than directed toward unconventional technical processes. :
[0015] In another aspect, in at least one embodiment, there is provided a score
estimation device for connected to a computing network. The score estimation device
comprises a signal reception module, configured to receive, by the computing network, a
plurality of input signals from a plurality of external systems, the input signals
corresponding to a client identifier to generate a corresponding first record, and the
external systems including primary systems and one or more secondary systems; a data
extraction module, configured to extract a corresponding second record by implementing
a plurality of predefined tags, the corresponding second record including a plurality of
primary signals received from the primary systems and a plurality of secondary signals
received from the one or more secondary systems; a data verification module, configured
to verify the corresponding second record by comparing a primary signal subset from the plurality of primary signals to a secondary signal subset from the plurality of secondary
signals, to generate a verified signal when matched; a data segregation module,
configured to, on receiving the verified signal, segregate the plurality of primary signals
to generate a categorized record including a plurality of data categories, wherein a data
category corresponds to a predefined tag; the signal reception module, configured to
receive, by the computing network, physical asset signals, associated to the client
identifier, from an external asset system; a score calculation module, configured to
generate, a qualifier score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized
record and the physical asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the
plurality of data categories in the categorized record; and a threshold determination
module, configured to determine whether the qualifier score meets a one or more
threshold range.
[0021] In another aspect, in at least one embodiment, there is provided a score
estimation device for connected to a computing network. The device comprises a signal
reception module, configured to receive, by the computing network, a plurality of input
signals from a plurality of primary systems, the input signals corresponding to a client
identifier to generate a corresponding first record; a data extraction module, configured
to extract a corresponding second record by implementing a plurality of predefined tags
and generating a categorized record from the corresponding second record, the
categorized record including a plurality of data categories, wherein a data category
corresponds to a predefined tag; the signal reception module, configured to receive, by
the computing network, physical asset signals, associated to the client identifier, from an
external asset system; a score calculation module, configured to generate, a qualifier
score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized record and the physical
asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the plurality of data categories
in the categorized record; and a threshold determination module, configured to determine
whether the qualifier score meets a one or more threshold range.
[0151] Upon receiving input signals corresponding to a client identifier, the signal
module 204 processes the input signals and generates a corresponding first record and
stores it in the first record storage 216 within the memory 2004. The input signals are
received in various formats, such as JSON, XML, or CSV, and include data like
transaction logs, account statements, income records, credit activities, and previous
tenancy records.
[0153] The device 2002 includes a Data Extraction Module 206. The Data Extraction
Module 206 is configured to analyze the corresponding first record stored in the First
Record Storage 216. The analysis include implementing a plurality of predefined tags to
identify and isolate relevant pieces of information within the first record.
[0154] The Data Extraction Module 206 scans the input signals in the first record for
data that matches the predefined tags. The predefined tags are configured to capture
specific types of information, such as income, liabilities, credit activities, and transaction
histories. By using these tags, the Data Extraction Module 206 can extract the relevant
data points required for further processing.
[0158] In the second embodiment, the Data Verification Module 208 is then configured
to verify the corresponding second record by comparing a primary signal subset from the
plurality of primary signals to a secondary signal subset from the plurality of secondary
signals. The comparison generates a verified signal when the primary and secondary
signals match. The verified signal is stored in the Verified Signal Storage 220. The Data
Verification Module 208 is configured to dynamically selecting subsets based on
metadata tags, such as transaction amounts, ensuring that only the most pertinent entries
are compared. Techniques like checksum comparison, pattern matching algorithms, and
statistical methods may be used to perform this data matching process efficiently.
[0163] The Score Calculation Module 212 is configured to generate a qualifier score
by applying a predictive algorithm to the categorized record and the physical asset
signals. The predictive algorithm operates by assigning a plurality of weights to various
data values within each data category stored in the Categorized Record Storage 222 and
the Physical Asset Storage 224. The algorithm calculates a qualifier score by evaluating
both positive and negative factors within the data categories. Positive factors may include
data values such as high monthly income, strong credit scores, and significant down
payments. Negative factors may include high liabilities, previous default history, and
irregular payment patterns.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 11-18 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward normalizing data categories based on completeness check on data categories, determining missing data value, entering corresponding data, determining missing data value when corresponding data unavailable – mere data manipulation - See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h). Dependent claim 12 is directed toward limiting external systems to employment data servers, financial institution servers, credit reporting servers, estate servers, criminal records server and client data server- well understood and routine. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward scanning input signals to extract identified information, storing identified information – insignificant extra solution activity and well understood. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward limiting predefined tags to include asset tag, liability tag, transaction tag- directed toward labeling data categories- well understood in the art. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward data categories include asset category, liability category and income category- mere data organization See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Dependent claim 16 is directed toward physical asset signals include “location data”, “asset market value”, “transaction date”, “rental value” – associated financial data content. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward input signals received from plurality of external systems by API -well understood application of interface data. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward input signals received on JSON file- well understood routine application of technology.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 19-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a computer-readable storage medium, as in independent Claim 19 and the dependent claims. The specification discloses para 0044 the computer readable medium as non-transitory. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The executed instructions of medium claim 19 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The executed instructions of medium claim 19 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. The additional elements “computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by the “host processor” corresponds to the steps performed by the host computer of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements “computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by the “host processor” corresponds to the steps performed by the host computer of claim 1. Accordingly, the executed instructions of claim 18 steps corresponds to the steps of method claim 1 performed by the host processor. Therefore, claim 18has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claim 20 this dependent claim has also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 19. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward normalizing data categories based on completeness check and entering corresponding data to the missing data value and determining missing data value when corresponding data value is unavailable, entering null value to missing data- mere data manipulation
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 19. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claim 20 is directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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 (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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8; Claim(s) 10 and 12-18; Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2024/0320641 A1 by Gassel (Gassel) and further in view of US Pub No. 2024/0161187 A1 by Peak(Peak)
In reference to Claim 1:
Gassel teaches:
A computer-implemented method ((Gassel) in at least Abstract), performed by a host processor via a computing network, comprising:
receiving, at the host processor via the computing network, a plurality of input signals from a plurality of external systems, the input signals corresponding to a client identifier to generate a corresponding first record, and the external systems including primary systems and one or more secondary systems ((Gassel) in at least FIG. 7; para 0028-0029, para 0082-0083);
analyzing, at the host processor, the corresponding first record, to extract a corresponding second record by implementing a plurality of predefined tags, the corresponding second record including a plurality of primary signals received from the primary systems and a plurality of secondary signals received from the one or more secondary systems ((Gassel) in at least FIG. 7; para 0028-0029, para 0083);
verifying, at the host processor, the corresponding second record by comparing a primary signal subset from the plurality of primary signals to a secondary signal subset from the plurality of secondary signals, to generate a verified signal when matched ((Gassel) in at least para 0042, para 0066-0068, para 0076, para 0083);
on receiving a verified signal, segregating, at the host processor, the plurality of primary signals to generate a categorized record including a plurality of data categories, wherein a data category corresponds to a predefined tag ((Gassel) in at least para 0083-0084);
receiving, at the host processor via the computing network, physical asset signals, associated to the client identifier, from an external asset system ((Gassel) in at least para 0029, para 0049-0051, para 0054, para 0056, para 0058, para 0077);
Gassel does not explicitly teach:
generating, at the host processor, a qualifier score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized record and the physical asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the plurality of data categories in the categorized record; and
determining whether the qualifier score meets a one or more threshold range.
Peak teaches:
generating, at the host processor, a qualifier score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized record and the physical asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the plurality of data categories in the categorized record ((Peak) in at least Abstract; para 0029, para 0067-0071, para 0073-0074, para 0095); and
determining whether the qualifier score meets a one or more threshold range ((Peak) in at least para 0069-0073, para 0088-0089, para 0095).
Both Gassel and Peak are directed toward collecting, categorizing and analyzing data for asset allocation/distribution. Peak teaches the motivation that lenders providing lending products applying models to analyze user account data in order improve accuracy, consistency and efficiency in determining distribution of lending products by applying lender risk scores thresholds so that the lender risk does not exceed or go above a particular threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis for analyzing distribution of assets of Gassel to include calculating scaled risk scores where weights are assigned to different categories of risk data used in the analysis as taught by Peak since Peak teaches the motivation that lenders providing lending products applying models to analyze user account data in order improve accuracy, consistency and efficiency in determining distribution of lending products by applying lender risk scores thresholds so that the lender risk does not exceed or go above a particular threshold
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3.
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plurality of external systems includes:
employment data server, financial institution server, credit reporting server, estate servers, criminal records server, and client data servers ((Gassel) in at least para 0022, para 0029-0030, para 0059).
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4.
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the implementing of the predefined tags comprises:
scanning, by the host processor, the input signals to extract an identified information matching the predefined tags ((Gassel) in at least para 0083); and
storing the identified information in the corresponding second record ((Gassel) in at least para 0084).
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5.
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the predefined tags include:
an asset tag, a liability tag, and a transactions tag. ((Gassel) in at least para 0040, para 0083 wherein the prior art teaches labeling datasets predefined into categories)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plurality of data categories include:
an asset category, a liability category, and an income category.((Gassel) in at least para 0040, para 0083-0084)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the physical asset signals include
any one or more of a location data, an asset market value, a transaction date, and a rental value. ((Gassel) in at least para 0050-0051, para 0058, para 0078-0079, para 0082-0083)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the plurality of input signals is received from a plurality of external systems by a secure … interface …((Gassel) in at least para 0035-0036, para 0042, para 0049, para 0052)
Gassel does not explicitly teach:
application programming interface (API).
Peak teaches:
application programming interface (API).((Peak) in at least para 0083)
According to KSR, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious common sense rationale. The prior art Gassel contained different interface technology which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a specific interface technology with another interface (e.g. API). The prior art Peak provides evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art performing analogous functions. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another as the prior art references encompasses variations of interface components according to known principles in the art, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
Both Gassel and Peak teach applying different interfaces for communication of data and authorization. Peak teaches the motivation of applying API for authorization processes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one of a plurality of interfaces applied for communication of Gassel to include using API as taught by Peak since Peak teaches the motivation of applying API for authorization processes.
In reference to Claim 10:
Gassel teaches:
A score estimation device for connected to a computing network ((Gassel) in at least abstract), comprising:
a signal reception module ((Gassel) in at least para 0035), configured to receive, by the computing network, a plurality of input signals from a plurality of external systems, the input signals corresponding to a client identifier to generate a corresponding first record, and the external systems including primary systems and one or more secondary systems ((Gassel) in at least FIG. 7; para 0028-0029, para 0082-0083);
a data extraction module ((Gassel) in at least para 0083 wherein the prior art teaches applying learning engine extracting features from data and compare extracted features), configured to extract a corresponding second record by implementing a plurality of predefined tags, the corresponding second record including a plurality of primary signals received from the primary systems and a plurality of secondary signals received from the one or more secondary systems ((Gassel) in at least FIG. 7; para 0028-0029, para 0083);
a data verification module ((Gassel) in at least para 0042 wherein the prior art teaches authentication circuitry and learning engine), configured to verify the corresponding second record by comparing a primary signal subset from the plurality of primary signals to a secondary signal subset from the plurality of secondary signals, to generate a verified signal when matched ((Gassel) in at least para 0042, para 0066-0068, para 0076, para 0083);
a data segregation module ((Gassel) in at least para 0083 wherein the prior art teaches learning engine to determine category of extracted data), configured to, on receiving the verified signal, segregate the plurality of primary signals to generate a categorized record including a plurality of data categories, wherein a data category corresponds to a predefined tag ((Gassel) in at least para 0083-0084);
the signal reception module ((Gassel) in at least para 0035), configured to receive, by the computing network, physical asset signals, associated to the client identifier, from an external asset system ((Gassel) in at least para 0029, para 0049-0051, para 0054, para 0056, para 0058, para 0077);
Gassel does not explicitly teach:
a score calculation module, configured to generate, a qualifier score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized record and the physical asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the plurality of data categories in the categorized record; and
a threshold determination module, configured to determine whether the qualifier score meets a one or more threshold range.
Peak teaches:
a score calculation module ((Peak) in at least para 0117-0118 wherein the prior art teaches module describes unit of functionality performing with embodiments of application where routines and mechanisms implemented as discrete modules for functions that can be shared in part or in total among one or more modules and may be claimed as separate modules through elements of functionality), configured to generate, a qualifier score based on a predictive algorithm applied to the categorized record and the physical asset signals, the predictive algorithm assigning weights to the plurality of data categories in the categorized record ((Peak) in at least Abstract; para 0029, para 0067-0071, para 0073-0074, para 0095); and
a threshold determination module ((Peak) in at least para 0117-0118 wherein the prior art teaches module describes unit of functionality performing with embodiments of application where routines and mechanisms implemented as discrete modules for functions that can be shared in part or in total among one or more modules and may be claimed as separate modules through elements of functionality), configured to determine whether the qualifier score meets a one or more threshold range ((Peak) in at least para 0069-0073, para 0088-0089, para 0095).
Both Gassel and Peak are directed toward collecting, categorizing and analyzing data for asset allocation/distribution. Peak teaches the motivation that lenders providing lending products applying models to analyze user account data in order improve accuracy, consistency and efficiency in determining distribution of lending products by applying lender risk scores thresholds so that the lender risk does not exceed or go above a particular threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis for analyzing distribution of assets of Gassel to include calculating scaled risk scores where weights are assigned to different categories of risk data used in the analysis as taught by Peak since Peak teaches the motivation that lenders providing lending products applying models to analyze user account data in order improve accuracy, consistency and efficiency in determining distribution of lending products by applying lender risk scores thresholds so that the lender risk does not exceed or go above a particular threshold
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
The functions of device claim 12 corresponds to steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The functions of device claim 13 corresponds to steps of method claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The functions of device claim 14 corresponds to steps of method claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
The functions of device claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
The functions of device claim 16 corresponds to steps of method claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
The functions of device claim 17 corresponds to steps of method claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 19.
The instructions of computer readable storage medium of claim 19 correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 19 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a “computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions executed by a computer ((Gassel) in at least para 0034-0035, para 0045). The instructions of medium claim 19 corresponding to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1
Claim(s) 2 of claim 1 above, Claim(s) 11 of claim 10 above, Claim(s) 20 of claim 19 above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2024/0320641 A1 by Gassel (Gassel) in view of US Pub No. 2024/0161187 A1 by Peak(Peak), and further in view of US Pub No. 2021/0081291 A1 by Anshul et al. (Anshul)
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
Gassel does not explicitly teach:
normalizing, at the host processor, the plurality of data categories based on a sufficiency factor, wherein the sufficiency factor provides completeness check on the plurality of data categories by comparing the plurality of data categories to a plurality of weighted fields to determine a missing data value;
on determining the missing data value, when a corresponding data value is available in the plurality of secondary signals, entering the corresponding data value from the plurality of secondary signals to the missing data value in the plurality of data categories; and
on determining the missing data value, when the corresponding data value is unavailable in the plurality of secondary signals, entering a null value to the missing data value in the plurality of data categories.
Anshul teaches:
normalizing, at the host processor, the plurality of data categories based on a sufficiency factor, wherein the sufficiency factor provides completeness check on the plurality of data categories by comparing the plurality of data categories to a plurality of weighted fields to determine a missing data value ((Anshul) in at least FIG. 5; para 0040-para 0050, para 0053, para 0074, para 0082);
on determining the missing data value, when a corresponding data value is available in the plurality of secondary signals, entering the corresponding data value from the plurality of secondary signals to the missing data value in the plurality of data categories ((Anshul) in at least para 0050; Table 2); and
on determining the missing data value, when the corresponding data value is unavailable in the plurality of secondary signals, entering a null value to the missing data value in the plurality of data categories ((Anshul) in at least para 0050; Table 2).
Both Gassel and Anshul disclose classifying and analyzing data for inconsistencies. Anshul teaches the motivation of testing data for inaccuracies and missing data points in order to correct data points by replacing missing data points or filling data with null values in order to address data inaccuracies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis for analyzing and classifying data received for inconsistencies as taught by Gassel to incorporate the testing and correcting of inaccurate data points of Anshul since Anshul teaches the motivation of testing data for inaccuracies and missing data points in order to correct data points by replacing missing data points or filling data with null values in order to address data inaccuracies
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11
The functions of device claim 11 corresponds to steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 19. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20
The executed instructions of medium claim 20 corresponds to steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
Claim(s) 9 of claim 1 above, Claim(s) 18 of claim 10 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2024/0320641 A1 by Gassel (Gassel) in view of US Pub No. 2024/0161187 A1 by Peak(Peak), and further in view of US Pub No. 2021/0110343 A1 by Lagneaux et al. (Lag)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Gassel does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of input signals is received as a JSON file.
Lag teaches:
wherein the plurality of input signals is received as a JSON file.((Lag) in at least para 0178)
According to KSR, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious common sense rationale. The prior art Gassel contained generic programming instructions which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a specific conventional programming language for execution to perform function. The prior art Lag provides evidence that the substituted programming language and their functions were conventional and known in the art performing execution of functions. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another as the prior art references encompasses variations of programming language according to known principles in the art, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
Both Gassel and Lag teach processors and systems executing software instructions to perform operation in order to carry out various functions including receiving data. Lag teaches the motivation of writing for conventional operating systems of executable code conventional programming language including JavaScript. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic programming for executing functions of Gassel to include JavaScript as taught by Lag since Lag teaches the motivation of writing for conventional operating systems of executable code conventional programming language including JavaScript
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Gassel and Peak discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Gassel further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
The functions of device claim 18 corresponds to steps of method claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 9
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2024/0013176 A1 by Baguley et al; US Pub No. 2013/0346844 A1 by Graepel et al; US Patent No. 11,277,437 B1 by Burgis et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights