DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 19/330,711 filed on September 16, 2025, title: “Custom Data”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 09/16/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/372,019 filed on 09/22/2023 (Patented No. 12,444,000) which is a CON of US Application No. 17/320,669 filed on 05/14/2021 (Patented No. 11,798,096) which is a CON of US Application No. 16/373,509 filed on 04/02/2019 (Patented No. 11,037,250) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/202,851 filed on 03/10/2014 (Patented No 10,275,832) which claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 61/791,899, filed on 03/15/2013 and US Provisional Application No. 61/792,100, filed on 03/15/2013.
For the purpose of examination, the 03/15/2013 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement listing all relevant reference(s) is not enclosed to this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,444,000, claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,798,096, claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 11,037,250, and claims 1-19 of US Patent No. 10,275,832. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recite substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. The present claims are broader in scope and are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. Also, the present Application and the Patents are directed to the same field of invention, they have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 19/330,711
Patent No. 12,444,000
Claim 15, A method, comprising:
Claim 11, A method, comprising:
accessing, by one or more processors, a company-defined configuration file comprising an entry corresponding to a custom data field specific to a company, wherein: (a) the company-defined configuration file specifies, for the custom data field included in the company-defined configuration file, how to use the custom data field in a centrally hosted application, (b) values for the custom data field are extracted, according to the company-defined configuration file, from a remote client site over a network, and (c) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies;
extracting values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies; and
executing, by the one or more processors, the centrally hosted application to process extracted values for the custom data field according to the company-defined configuration file;
storing, by the one or more processors, the extracted values to a data store; and
providing a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
providing, by the one or more processors, a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
Application No. 19/330,711
Patent No/ 11,798,096
Claim 15, A method, comprising:
Claim 11, A method, comprising:
accessing configuration data associated with a particular entity in a plurality of entities, wherein the configuration data includes a specification of:
extracting values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies; and
how to extract a set of entity-generated data records from a remote data store associated with the particular entity, wherein the remote data store associated with the particular entity comprises common data elements shared by the plurality of entities and entity-specific data elements specified by the particular entity; and
how the set of entity-generated data records is to be used by a hosted application;
according to the specification included in the configuration data, transmitting, over a network, a set of query parameters to a client component associated with the particular entity, wherein the client component is configured to generate a query for extracting values associated with an entity-specific data field, and wherein generating the query comprises modifying, by the client component, a template query using the set of query parameters;
based at least in part on the generated query, receiving, a set of values for the entity-specific data field extracted from the remote data store; and
providing a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
executing the hosted application, including using at least some of the extracted values for the entity-specific data field according to the specification included in the configuration data.
Application No. 19/330,711
Patent No. 11,037,250
Claim 15, A method, comprising:
Claim 7, A method, comprising:
accessing configuration data associated with a particular entity in a plurality of entities, wherein the configuration data includes a specification of how to extract a set of entity generated data records from a remote data store associated with the particular entity, and wherein the remote data store associated with the particular entity comprises common data elements shared by the plurality of entities and entity-specific data elements specified by the particular entity;
determining that values for a data field specified in the configuration data have been previously extracted from the remote data store;
extracting values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies; and
in response to determining that values for the data field have been previously extracted, facilitating incremental data extraction at least in part by generating, according to the specification included in the configuration data, a query for values associated with the data field, wherein generating the query comprises determining an associated range indicator that indicates a time period of data values to be extracted, wherein the range indicator associated with the query includes a timestamp representing a starting point of the time period, and wherein the timestamp is based at least in part on a previous retrieval timestamp;
based at least in part on the generated query, extracting, from the remote data store, values for the data field corresponding to the determined range indicator; and
storing the extracted values to a data store of a central host component that provides services to the plurality of entities.
providing a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
Application No. 19/330,711
Patent No. 10,275,832
Claim 15, A method, comprising:
Claim 19, A method, comprising:
extracting values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies; and
obtaining configuration data associated with a particular entity that includes:
a specification of how to extract a set of entity generated data records from a remote data store associated with the particular entity; and
a specification of how the set of entity generated data records is to be used by a centrally hosted application, wherein the centrally hosted application is hosted on a central hosted component configured to provide services to a plurality of entities;
wherein the remote data store comprises common data elements shared by the plurality of entities and entity-specific data elements specified by the entity;
obtaining a template query comprising a standard query structure:
according to the specification, included in the obtained configuration data, of how to extract the set of entity generated data records from the remote data store, assembling a query at least in part by substituting text of the obtained template query comprising the standard query structure based at least in part on a set of characteristics of the remote data store associated with the entity, wherein the set of characteristics of the remote data store comprise one or more of a database language, database type, and database version,
wherein, for a different remote data store with a different set of characteristics, a different query is assembled from the template query;
based at least in part on the assembled query, extracting, over a network, the set of entity generated data records from the remote data store associated with the particular entity; and
providing a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
executing, using one or more processors, the centrally hosted application to process the extracted set of entity generated data records, wherein the execution of the centrally hosted application is performed according to the specification of how the extracted set of entity generated data records is to be used by the centrally hosted application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-14 recite a system comprising processors and memories, claims 15-19 recite method comprising series of steps, and claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with stored instructions for processing insurance data collected from a plurality of insurance companies. Therefore, the claims recite a machine, process, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 15, A method, comprising:
extracting values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies; and
providing a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values.
The claim invention recites a method for accessing and processing insurance data extracted from a plurality of insurance companies and storing them in a central host computer that provides services to plurality of entities. The above limitations (see underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising processors and memories, client systems, network, central hosted computer). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including extracting and processing extracted insurance data extracted from plurality of insurance companies and storing them in a central host computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The claim steps, such as extracting data and providing data correspond to the concept of “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in the Electric Power Group case. The claim describes the concept that is directed to a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is a Method Of Organizing Human Activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 15 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 1 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer- readable medium of claim 20 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The mere nominal recitation of computer components does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 15, and 20 include the additional elements, such as a system comprising processors, memories, client systems, network, and central hosted computer, all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system (see at least in paragraphs 19-27, 31-40 and Figures 1-4 in Publication No. 2026/0010958-A1) to perform the extracting and providing steps. The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
The independent claims (1, 15, and 20) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the extracting and providing functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend on independent claims 1 and 15 respectively and thus include all of the limitations and features of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1 and 15.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to process the extracted values for the custom data field.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the processor to process the extracted values. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein the extracted values are processed by a centrally hosted application.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the processor to process the extracted values. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements “wherein the extracted values are extracted based at least in part on information comprised in a company-defined configuration file.”. The limitations are additional instructions for how the extracted values are extracted. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements “wherein the company-defined configuration file specifies how custom data field is to be used in a centrally hosted application.”. The limitations are additional instructions for how the custom data field is used. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 18 recite the additional elements “wherein the company-defined configuration file specifies multiple different uses for the custom data field for different centrally hosted applications.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the company-defined configuration file. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 19 recite the additional elements “wherein the company-defined configuration file defines a company-specific metric using the custom data field.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the company-defined configuration file defining the company-specific metric using the custom data field. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements “wherein the custom data field is associated with a tag specifying how to use the custom data field.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the custom data field is associating with a tag specifying how to use the custom data field. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements “wherein the tag indicates at least one of the centrally hosted application, a feature, or an action.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the tag indicating the centrally hosted application. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements “wherein the centrally hosted application specified in the tag comprises a comparison application.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the centrally hosted application specifying in the tag comprises a comparison application. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements “wherein the feature specified in the tag comprises a selection feature in the comparison application.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the feature in the tag comprises a selection feature. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements “wherein the action specified in the tag comprises a filter action, wherein the custom data field is to be used as a filter in the selection feature.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the action in the tag comprises a filter action. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements “wherein information included in the tag is defined hierarchically.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the information in the tag is defined hierarchically. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements “wherein uses of the custom data field are based on a data type of the custom data field.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the custom data field are based on data type of the custom data field. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The limitations of claims 2-14 and 16-19 further define the abstract idea and are generic limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Thus, the dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claim and additional details and requirements for how the insurance data is extracted and stored. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found.
The focus of the claimed invention is on a method for extracting and processing the extracted insurance data extracted from plurality of insurance companies and storing them in a central host computer. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or query, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s claimed invention is basically “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is validated in paragraph 2 of the Specification (see Publication No. 2026/0010958-A1):
[0002] It can be efficient to deliver services via the cloud. A service provider can build an application once and share it among multiple companies. Typically, however, the types of data presented and used by central services is consistent across all companies. This can be limiting to companies. Additionally, for companies who have installed applications that share similar, but not identical database structures, extracting information from the companies can be burdensome.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsumura et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0278406-A1, filed on 03/15/2013) (hereinafter “Tsumura”) and further in view of Strange (US Pub. No. 2013/0297353-A1, filed on 03/15/2013, Provisional Application No. 61/022,279, filed on 01/18/2008) (hereinafter “Strange”).
As per Claim 1, Tsumura teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors configured to (see Tsumura, at least Figure 1 and description):
extract values for a custom data field from a remote client site over a network, 5 wherein: (a) the custom data field is specific to a company associated with the remote client site, and (b) the remote client site comprises a data store based at least in part on (i) the custom data field specific to the company and (ii) a set of standard fields that are common across a plurality of companies (see Tsumura at least in Abstract “techniques for obtaining data from unstructured data for structured data collection”, paras. 37 “receives unstructured data”, 41, 44, 49, 56 and Figure 2);
provide a hosted service to one or more client systems at the remote client site, wherein the hosted service is provided based at least in part on the extracted values; and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 57).
Tsumura teaches every limitation including extracting and storing data from various data sources (see para. 36) except the “insurance data”. However, Strange teaches the “insurance data”, see par. 5 “insurance information from other parties", 76 and 85 “insurance information”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tsumura to include the insurance data, as taught by Strange, in its invention to provide a system for processing and extracting insurance data collected from various data sources. The motivation is simply to provide a method that can extract and process insurance data from various data sources (see Tsumura, para. 1 “obtaining data from unstructured data for a structured data collection”).
As per claim 2, Tsumura further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to process the extracted values for the custom data field (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per claim 3, Tsumura further teaches wherein the extracted values are processed by a centrally hosted application (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per claim 4, Tsumura further teaches wherein the extracted values are extracted based at least in part on information comprised in a company-defined configuration file (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per claim 5, Tsumura further teaches wherein the company-defined configuration file specifies how 20 custom data field is to be used in a centrally hosted application (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 6, Tsumura further teaches wherein the company-defined configuration file specifies multiple different uses for the custom data field for different centrally hosted applications (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 7, Tsumura further teaches wherein the company-defined configuration file defines a company-specific metric using the custom data field (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 8, Tsumura further teaches wherein the custom data field is associated with a tag specifying how to use the custom data field (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 9, Tsumura further teaches wherein the tag indicates at least one of the centrally hosted application, a feature, or an action (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 10, Tsumura further teaches wherein the centrally hosted application specified in the tag comprises a comparison application (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 11, Tsumura further teaches wherein the feature specified in the tag comprises a selection feature in the comparison application (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 12, Tsumura further teaches wherein the action specified in the tag comprises a filter action, wherein the custom data field is to be used as a filter in the selection feature ((see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 13, Tsumura further teaches wherein information included in the tag is defined hierarchically (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 14, Tsumura further teaches wherein uses of the custom data field are based on a data type of the custom data field (see Tsumura, at least in paras. 36-57 and Figure 2).
As per Claim 15, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
As per Claim 16, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 4.
As per Claim 17, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 5 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 5.
As per Claim 18, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 6 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 6.
As per Claim 19, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 7 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 7.
As per Claim 20, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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 M. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights