Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13729901 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/729,901 12/28/2012 Martin O'Connor 020758/414370 9579
826 7590 09/28/2017
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
KHAN, IFTEKHAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN O’CONNOR, QIANQIU ZHU, and
DANIEL RICHARD1
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—25. See App. Br. 2 and 24—25.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Equifax, Inc. is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed January 21, 2016 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed August 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 21, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed February 20, 2017
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
Various embodiments of the present invention provide
systems, methods, and computer-program products for fusing at
least two scores. In various embodiments, at least two scores are
received in which each score predicts the probability of an
outcome associated with a particular unit. In particular
embodiments, [a] mass and a distance are calculated between two
objects based on the at least two scores in which the first of the
two objects is a constant and the second of the two objects
comprises one or more characteristics of the particular unit.
Further, in particular embodiments, a gravitational force between
the two objects is calculated based on the mass and the distance
and this gravitational force is used as a fused score for the at least
two scores.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A method for determining the creditworthiness of an
individual, said method comprising said steps of:
receiving, via one or more processors, at least two scores,
wherein each score represents a different aspect of the
creditworthiness of an individual;
calculating, via the one or more processors, a mass and a
distance between two objects based on said at least two scores,
wherein said mass of a first of said two objects is identified based
at least in part on a constant and said mass of a second of said two
objects is identified based at least in part on said at least two scores
and said second of said two objects comprises one or more
characteristics of said individual;
calculating, via the one or more processors, a gravitational
force between said two objects based on said mass of said first of
said two objects, said mass of said second of said two objects, and
said distance, wherein said gravitational force is used as a fused
score for said at least two scores; and
2
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
determining, via the one or more processors, whether said
individual is likely to qualify for a financial product based on said
fused score for said at least two scores.
Claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 1, 2, 7—10, 15—18, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zarikian (US 2010/0145847 Al; published
June 10, 2010) and Wolman (US 6,968,342 B2; issued Nov. 22, 2005).
Final Act. 8—13.3
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellants identified, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
THE NON-STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner rejects claims 1—25 as being directed to patent
ineligible subject matter because the claims as a whole are directed to an
abstract idea. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the present
claims are directed to the abstract idea of deciding credit worthiness, which
is similar to the claimed abstract idea of hedging to manage risk, which the
Bilski Court found to be patent ineligible. Id. (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. 593 (2010). The Examiner further finds that the claims do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
3 The Final Action’s heading of the rejection omits claim 25 from the list of
claims subject to the obviousness rejection. Final Act. 8. We find this
omission to constitute harmless error because claim 25 is expressly
addressed in the body of the obviousness rejection. See Final Act. 12.
3
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
the abstract idea of deciding credit worthiness. Id. Rather, the additional
elements, in the Examiner’s opinion, merely are directed to modeling of
mathematical predictions about future behavior or abstract mathematical
optimization techniques. Id. at 5.
Arguing all of the claims together as a single group (App. Br. 9—16),
Appellants argue, for example,
the claims are directed to a highly computer-specific system for
determining the creditworthiness of an individual utilizing
computer-specific features and/or steps. Specifically,. . . one or
more computing applications are utilized for receiving the
various scores for a particular individual, and for ultimately
performing the score fusion process for each of the received
scores. . . . The computing entities performing the score fusion
process are configured to receive data indicative of the scores to
be fused from various sources, including various predictive score
applications configured to provide various scores having a low
correlation therebetween. . . . The computing entity performing
the score fusion process thereafter fuses multiple scores in a
single score fusion process, thereby minimizing the computing
resources necessary to complete the score fusion process.
App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 49, 52—53).
Analysis
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of error. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Action from which the appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We likewise concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
As a matter of completeness, we additionally note that claim 1 merely
recites a step of receiving data into a computer, two steps of performing
mathematical calculations on the inputted data, and a final step of using a
computer to calculate a result or determine “whether said individual is likely
4
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
to qualify for a financial product based on said fused score for said at least
two [input] scores.” See claim 1. Even assuming arguendo that the
mathematical formulas used in the calculations are novel, that fact would not
cause the claims to be directed to a computer-specific or inherently
technological problem. In such a case, the claims still would be directed
merely to a method of using common computers in their conventional and
typical manner of performing mathematical calculations based on whatever
mathematical formulas are programmed or stored on the computer.
We disagree with Appellants’ assertion that the present claims are
analogous to those in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.cm, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
(Fed. Cir. 2014). App. Br. 15. We find insufficient evidence that the
present claims relate to a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer networks, much less that the claims are directed to, or rooted in,
computer technology that overcomes such computer-related problems.
Appellants do not point to any passage of the Specification in support of
their assertion (App. Br. 12) that the present invention minimizes computer
resources. As explained above, the claims instead are directed to using
mathematical algorithms to make business decisions about whether to offer
to contract with an individual (i.e., decide whether to offer an individual a
financial product based upon on a calculated risk).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible
abstract ideas. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv):
When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select
a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the
5
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or
subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Zarikian discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 except that “Zarikian does[] not explicitly disclose
calculating, via the one or more processors, a mass and a distance between
two objects based on said at least two scores.” Final Act. 9—10. The
Examiner additionally finds that “Zarikian does[] not explicitly disclose
calculating, via the one or more processors, a gravitational force between
said two objects based on said mass and said distance, wherein said
gravitational force is used as a fused score for said at least two scores.” Id.
at 10.
The Examiner finds that Wolman, in contrast, teaches calculating a
mass. Id. (citing Wolman col. 8,11. 1—12 for teaching weight matrices). The
Examiner finds that Wolman teaches calculating a distance between two
objects. Final Act. 10 (citing Wolman col. 8,11. 36-45 for teaching
generalized gravitational clustering measures that include a distance
function). The Examiner also finds that Wolman teaches these calculated
distances are based on two scores. Final Act. 10 (citing Wolman col. 8,
11. 1—12 for teaching “[djifferences between individual configurations are
expressed in terms of this characteristic object with these differences
encoded in the weight matrices'1'’).
The Examiner further finds that “Zarikian does[] not explicitly
disclose calculating, via the one or more processors, a gravitational force
between said two objects based on said mass and said distance, wherein said
6
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
gravitational force is used as a fused score for said at least two scores.”
Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that Wolman teaches this missing
limitation. Final Act. 10—11 (citing Wolman col. 2,11. 23—32; col. 6,1. 59-
col. 7,1. 11; col. 7,1. 60-col. 8,1. 63; Examples D and E (cols. 11—15);
col. 15,11. 25—35; col. 8,11. 1—12). The Examiner concludes
It would have been obvious ... to modify the teachings of
Zarikian by incorporating the step of calculating[] a gravitational
force between said two objects based on said mass and said
distance, wherein said gravitational force is used as a fused score
for said at least two scores as taught by Wolman for the purpose
of providing to an effective tool for merging or fusion of ordinal
data which results in a ratio measurement level merged value.
Final Act. 11 (citing Wolman col. 1,11. 15—20).
Appellants argue, inter alia,
Wolman is directed to systems and methods for merging multiple
data sets into a single data set. The Examiner effectively suggests
that merging sets of data into another compressed set is “close
enough” to concepts for merging a plurality of individual scores
into one, single fused score that is reflective of the creditworthiness
of an individual. A closer consideration of Wolman’s disclosure,
however, reveals that utilizing Wolman’s matrix fusion process to
produce individual fused scores for various individuals would
result in an utterly worthless set of data comprising multiple
numbers that are not indicative of the creditworthiness of any one
individual. Wolman’s methodology would appear to suggest that
scores from multiple individuals could be combined to create a
variety of numbers that each incorporate aspects of several
individuals’ predictive scores, rather than providing a single score
that incorporates aspects of a single individual’s creditworthiness.
App. Br. 18.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument with the
following reasoning:
Wolman, (in column 2 lines 23—45; column 6 line 59 to
column 7 line 11; column 7 line 60 to column 8 line 63; column
7
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
8 lines 1-12) shows a generalized gravitational model
computations-wherein the collection of input data structures,
whose values (i.e. score) are fused through energy minimization
to create a compressed representations of the input data
structures, energy minimization is based on the gravitational
model. These collections of input data structures (i.e. multiple
scores) are construed as individual scores and the compressed
data (Note that it could be single value or vector) produced from
these data structures (i.e. scores) by an energy minimization
Technique is construed as the fused score because energy
minimization is based on the gravitational model which is
analogous to the claimed limitation of generating a single fused
score based on at least two scores.
Ans. 10.
Analysis
Even if we were to assume that Zarikian’s invention hypothetically
could be modified by Wolman’s teachings so as to result in the present
invention, as claimed, we nonetheless conclude that the Examiner has not
established sufficient motivation existed to combine the references in a
manner recited by the claimed method.
We agree with Appellants that “ Wolman’s disclosure focuses
primarily on systems and methods for merging multiple data sets into a
single data set. Wolman includes nothing more than passing references to a
generic gravitational model, and does not provide any detail regarding how
such a model may be used to merge any data types.” Reply Br. 13.
As such, the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning for why
one who is designing an adjusted credit risk score process according to
Zarikian, would have used Wolman’s superficially mentioned generalized
gravitation clustering model specifically in the manner recited by the
independent claims. The rejection’s manner of combining the cited
8
Appeal 2017-006141
Application 13/729,901
references appears to be the product of the Examiner using Appellants’
claims as a roadmap. Such bases for combining references constitutes
impermissible hindsight.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—25 under 35U.S.C. § 101
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7—10, 15—18, and 23—
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9