Ex Parte FLEMING et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14341160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/341,160 07/25/2014
125224 7590 03/28/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C._CoreLogic
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark M. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CORLOG.009US 4861
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
meo@mg-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK M. FLEMING and KATHRYN DOBBYN
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "computer processes for detecting and
assessing multiple types of risks, and more specifically to natural hazard
risks in financial transactions." Specification ,r 2.
1 Appellants identify CoreLogic Solutions, LLC. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
Illustrative Claim
1. A system for detecting and assessing lending risks, the system
compnsmg:
a computer system comprising one or more computing devices, the
computer system programmed, via executable code modules stored on a
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, to implement:
a combined risk detection model for detecting and assessing data
indicative of a plurality of risks in loan data, the combined risk detection
model adapted to receive as input a plurality of input features extracted from
two or more of a plurality of risk detection models, the plurality of risk
detection models comprising:
a default risk model that detects the presence of data indicative of a
risk of early payment default in the loan data, and
a natural hazard risk model that detects the presence of data indicative
of a risk of a natural hazard in the loan data and determines, based on the
data indicative of a risk of the natural hazard, a likelihood of default due to
the impact of the natural hazard,
wherein the plurality of input features are extracted from the two or
more risk detection models by mathematically combining scores from the
plurality of risk detection models for input into the combined risk detection
model, the plurality of input features being selected as based at least in part
on a selection of a modeling method used to construct the combined risk
detection model; and
a score reporting module that reports a composite risk score generated
by the combined risk detection model.
2
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
Rejection on Appeal2
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Action
3---6.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 27, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
September 28, 2017), the Final Action (mailed November 17, 2016) and the
Answer (mailed August 1, 2017), for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea
comprising a fundamental economic practice or organizing human activity,
and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Action 5; see Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (describing the two-
step framework "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts").
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum, the
Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
2 The 35 USC§ 112, second paragraph and the 35 USC§ 103(a) rejections
were withdrawn by the Examiner. Answer 3-8.
3
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th
ed. 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis and clarification with respect to the
Memorandum.
Appellants argue the pending claims are not directed to an abstract
idea under "Part I of the two-part analysis set forth in Alice" (Appeal Brief
6) because "the present application is directed to an improvement in
computer functionality itself, thereby facilitating an improvement in system-
wide delivery of media content." Appeal Brief 7.
We agree with the Examiner's determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. See Final Action 3---6. Appellants' Abstract
discloses that the invention is "systems and methods of detecting and
assessing multiple types of risks related to mortgage lending."
4
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
The Specification discloses:
Embodiments disclosed herein provide systems and
methods for detecting and assessing various types of risks
associated with financial transactions, such as transactions
involved in mortgage lending. Embodiments of the risk detection
and assessment system combine default risk and natural hazard
risk models that are configured to detect and assess particular
types of risks into a single combined model that is better suited
for detecting risks in the overall transactions. Various
embodiments disclosed herein combine discrete data models,
each of which may be utilized on its own to provide a specific
risk score.
Specification ,r 1 7.
Claim 1 recites "a combined risk detection model for detecting and
assessing data indicative of a plurality of risks in loan data," "a default risk
model that detects the presence of data indicative of a risk of early payment
default in the loan data," and wherein "a natural hazard risk model that
detects the presence of data indicative of a risk of a natural hazard in the
loan data and determines, based on the data indicative of a risk of the natural
hazard, a likelihood of default due to the impact of the natural hazard."
These steps comprise fundamental economic principles or practices and/or
commercial or legal interactions; thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of
"certain methods of organizing human activity." Memorandum, Section I
(Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see Specification ,r,r 17-21. Our reviewing
court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited
similar subject matter. See Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk .... "); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims directed to abstract idea of
processing loan information through a clearinghouse); Accenture Glob.
5
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2013) ( claims reciting "generalized software components arranged to
implement an abstract concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks
based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a
computer" not patent eligible). Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an
abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the guidance. See
Memorandum, Section III(A)(l) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim
Recites a Judicial Exception).
Appellants argue, "[T]he claims of the present application are directed
to an improvement in the functionality of a particular device, and are
therefore part of the 'substantial class of claims that are not directed to a
patent-ineligible concept' (Enfish at 10)." Appeal Brief 7.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the claims
utilize a computer system as merely a tool to evaluate the financial risk
associated with investment properties. See Specification ,r,r 21-22; see also
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
("[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an
improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract
idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database)
or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool."). The claims do not recite an
additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. See Final Action 4 ("[T]he additional computer elements,
which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional
computer functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the
6
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
abstract idea."); Appellants' Figure 1; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 ("In
holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that
'implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion' will 'automatically
fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of§ 101. "' ( alterations in original)
(quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2)
(Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the
Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application). Nor do we
find the claim includes a specific limitation or a combination of elements
that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See
Memorandum, Section III(B) (Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept); see
also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) ("the 'inventive concept'
cannot be the abstract idea itself'); see Answer 5-7; see also Specification
iTiT 5, 13 and 49.
Other than the abstract idea itself, the remaining claim elements only
recite generic computer components that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Final Action 5---6; Specification iTiT 22-33; Figure 1; Alice,
573 U.S. at 226.
Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1-20 recites a fundamental
economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human
activity identified in the Memorandum and thus an abstract idea. See Final
Action 3---6.
7
Appeal2018-000006
Application 14/341, 160
DECISION
The Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1-20
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
8