Ex Parte Hu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13403577 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/403,577 02/23/2012 Po Hu P00759-US-UTIL 1544
98665 7590 01/31/2017
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.0 Box 381
Cox Cob, CT 06807
EXAMINER
HAMILTON, SARA CHANDLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PO HU and JEAN-PIERRE GERARD
Appeal 2015-002845
Application 13/403,577
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 10—17, and 22—28. We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify MasterCard Inf 1 Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2015-002845
Application 13/403,577
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claims relate generally to “a credit card profitability
model, wherein transaction data is used to optimize credit line decrease
decisions.” (Spec. 10,11. 19—20). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
obtaining, by at least one hardware processor, electronic
data from a payment processing network for a plurality of credit
accounts for a first predetermined period of time;
estimating, by said at least one hardware processor, a
probability of default for each of said credit accounts from said
data obtained from said payment processing network;
calculating, by said at least one hardware processor, an
expected profitability for each of said credit accounts based on
said data obtained from said payment processing network,
wherein said expected profitability for a respective one of said
credit accounts is risk-weighted according to said estimated
probability of default for said respective one of said credit
accounts, and wherein a risk-weighted expected profitability is a
value calculated as a difference between a current balance of said
respective one of said credit accounts and a predicted value of
one of a loss and a profit of said respective one of said credit
accounts multiplied by said probability of default said respective
one of said credit accounts;
dividing, by said at least one hardware processor, said
credit accounts using at least one cut-off selected based on said
risk-weighted expected profitabilities of said credit accounts; and
modifying, by said at least one hardware processor, a
credit line accessible via the payment processing network and
associated with at least one of the credit accounts based on said
at least one cut-off.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2015-002845
Application 13/403,577
Tanaka
Carrier
Brown
Pednault
US 7,941,363 B2 May 10,2011
US 8,078,529 B1 Dec. 13,2011
US 2004/0128236 A1 July 1,2004
US 2009/0030864 A1 Jan. 29, 2009
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 10-17, and 22—28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as reciting ineligible subject matter.
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as not meeting the written description requirement.
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 12—17, 24, 25, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown and Tanaka.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brown, Tanaka, and Carrier.
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 23, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown, Tanaka, Carrier, and Pednault.
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Specification describes that “[a]s described above in connection
with Equations 4-7 and FIG. 7, one or more embodiments determine the
estimated probability of default for each of the accounts based on a
discretization of the account-level data.” (Spec. 24,11. 23—25).
2. Appellants’ Figure 1 shows a diagram of a system, as shown below:
FINDINGS OF FACT
3
Appeal 2015-002845
Application 13/403,577
JDO
Appellants’ Figure 1 showing a system schematic.
3. Appellants’ Figure 7 discloses a graph, as shown below:
Figure 7 showing a graph.
4. The Specification discloses, in conjunction with estimating account
profitability, Equation 4, shown below:
4
Appeal 2015-002845
Application 13/403,577
pgr s ftp fc(x)tf1(x)t...f;(x)
<4tx)-1n Pff > lW - Is fi« (X) * W ® *' " fl ® - Oj- x‘P (4)
Where:
u, are the cut-off points between the categories, and
li(x) is the probability of being in class i given covariates a.
Appellants’ Equation 4.
(Spec. 1811. 14—25).
5. The Specification discloses Appellants’ Equation 5, as follows:
Prob(dms