Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13729858 (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.
13/729,858 12/28/2012 Martin O'Connor 020758/414373 1059
826 7590 09/28/2017
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
OJIAKU, CHIKAODINAKA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
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 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
Technology Center 3600
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
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 11—20, 22, and 24—27. App. Br. 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 Non-Final Action mailed June 6, 2016 (“Non-Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed October 24, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 9, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed February 2,
2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
Various embodiments of the present invention provide
systems and methods for determining a personalized fusion
score. In certain embodiments, the systems and methods are
configured for calculating preliminary fused scores for
consumers at least in part by applying a first score fusion
technique across the sample of consumer data. Segmentation
scores are then calculated based at least in part upon the
preliminary fused scores. In those and other embodiments, the
segmentation scores enable creation of a plurality of cluster
subsets within the sample of consumer data. In certain
embodiments cluster subsets are defined at least in part by a
particular score mix, while in other embodiments subsets are
defined at least in part by respective score fusion techniques that
prove optimal for each subset. Further, in various embodiments,
application of multiple score fusion techniques across respective
cluster subsets provides personalized fusion scores for the
consumers in each respective cluster subset.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a
personalized fusion score, said method implemented via a
computer system comprising a memory and at least one
computer processor, and comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving a sample of consumer data stored in the
memory, said sample of consumer data comprising score data for
each of a plurality of consumers, wherein the score data is
indicative of at least two predictive scores for each of the
plurality of consumers;
(b) determining, via the at least one computer processor,
preliminary fused scores for each of at least two consumers of
the plurality of consumers, wherein said preliminary fused scores
for each of the at least two consumers are determined at least in
2
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
part by applying a first score fusion technique to said at least two
predictive scores for each of said at least two consumers;
(c) generating, via the at least one computer processor,
segmentation score data for each of said at least two consumers
based at least in part upon said preliminary fused scores;
(d) creating, via the at least one computer processor, a
plurality of data cluster subsets within said sample of consumer
data based at least in part on said segmentation score data, each
of the plurality of data cluster subsets comprising the score data
corresponding to at least one of said at least two consumers;
(e) identifying, via the at least one computer processor, an
optimal score fusion technique for at least one of said plurality
of cluster subsets, said optimal score fusion technique is
identified as one of a plurality of score fusion techniques stored
in the memory, and is identified for the at least one of said
plurality of data cluster subsets independently from said first
score fusion technique applied to said at least two predictive
scores for each of said at least two consumers, and wherein said
optimal score fusion technique identified for the at least one of
said plurality of data cluster subsets is different from said first
score fusion technique;
(f) determining, via the at least one computer processor,
the personalized fusion score for at least one consumer in the at
least one of said plurality of data cluster subsets, said
personalized fusion score being determined by applying said
optimal score fusion technique to said at least two predictive
scores of the score data for said at least one consumer in said at
least one of said plurality of data cluster subsets; and
(g) generating, via the at least one computer processor, a
graphical display indicative of the personalized fusion score for
at least one consumer.
Claims 1—9, 11—20, 22, and 24—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Non-Final
Act. 12.
3
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
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).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the appealed claims are directed to the
abstract idea of calculating fusion scores without significantly more than this
judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 12.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claims are drawn to mathematical
modeling of the fundamental economic practice of determining credit risk,
as well as the abstract idea of using abstract mathematical optimization
techniques. Id. at 12—13. The Examiner further finds that this abstract idea
is carried out “using [a] generic computer merely as a tool to implement the
abstract idea[, but the claimed invention] does not alone improve the
computer itself.” Ans. 13. The Examiner then sets forth rationales for
reaching this conclusion and why Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are
unpersuasive. Non-Final Act. 2—14. The Examiner also explains why recent
court cases cited by Appellants are not controlling for the present claims or
otherwise do not dictate the Examiner reach a conclusion of patentability.
See generally Ans.
Arguing all of the claims together as a single group (App. Br. 10-25),
Appellants assert, for example, “[although the Office Action occasionally
supplements [the] two-word claim summary [of ‘score fusion’] with a
regurgitation of the actual claim language . . ., the crux of the Examiner’s
analysis is based on the over-simplified, generic ‘score fusion’ claim
interpretation.” App. Br. 11 (citation omitted). “Appellants respectfully
4
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
submit that the claim interpretation provided in the Office Action does not
reflect a full review of the language of the claims as required by the federal
courts.” Id. at 12.
In Appellants’ view, “[t]he claimed embodiments . . . address the
technological limitations of prior score fusion systems by enabling score
fusion computer systems to automatically distinguish between individuals,
and to group individuals based on characteristics that are indicative of an
appropriate score fusion methodology.” Id. at 14. According to Appellants,
The claims . . . address[] the abilities and limitations of
computing processors to select and utilize optimal score fusion
techniques for data corresponding to particular individuals, at
least in part, by grouping individuals into data cluster subsets
based on segmentation score data generated for each individual.
Understanding how processing entities are able to select
appropriate score fusion methodologies enables the score fusion
computing systems to incorporate a consideration of unique
characteristics of individuals by automatically selecting an
appropriate score fusion methodology for a specific individual,
and then automatically applying the selected score fusion
methodology to generate a fused score for the individual.
Id. at 16—17.
Appellants additionally argue that the combination of elements adds
significantly more than a mere abstract idea because “the claims recite a
combination of limitations that are specifically tailored for operation in a
computer-based environment, and solve a computer-specific problem existing
in prior score fusion systems.” Id. at 19.
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
5
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
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 inputting data (score data) into a computer; a step of
performing mathematical calculations on the inputted data to produce
preliminary data (fused scores); a step of performing further mathematical
calculations to generate further data (segmentation score data); a step of
using the computer to organize or cluster the data; a step of using the
computer to select, based on the reorganized data, a further mathematical
model to use next (or “identifying ... an optimal score fusion technique”);
using the identified mathematical model to calculate a final number (or
personalized fusion score); and a final step of generating a display indicative
of the generated data (or personalized fusion score). See claim 1. That is,
claim 1 merely is directed to the abstract ideas of organizing data and
performing mathematical calculations on data—abstract ideas that could be
performed mentally, or at least with pencil and paper.
Even assuming arguendo that the mathematical formulas used in the
calculations are novel, that fact would just make the patent ineligible
abstract ideas novel. It would not cause the claims to be directed to a
computer-specific or technological problem. In such a case, the claims still
would be directed to a method of performing abstract ideas using common
computers in their conventional and typical manner by performing
mathematical calculations and data grouping based on whatever
mathematical formulas and sorting protocols are programmed or stored on
the computer. The additionally claimed steps of data gathering and
6
Appeal 2017-005371
Application 13/729,858
performing the post-solution activity of displaying the calculated data are
conventional and do not add significantly more to the patent ineligible
abstract ideas.
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 the appealed claims. 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
appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or
subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11—20, 22, and 24—27
is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
7