Global Analytics, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 20212020002376 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/549,505 11/20/2014 Krishna Gopinathan 372566-991121 2764 26379 7590 08/23/2021 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) 2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248 EXAMINER LERNER, MARTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2021 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): PatentDocketingUS-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KRISHNA GOPINATHAN, JAGAT CHAITANYA, SUDALAI RAJ KUMAR, and SRIRAM RANGARAJAN ___________ Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–25, 27–32, and 34–46. Claims 3, 10, 26, and 33 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to credit risk decision management using voice analytics. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A voice analytic based predictive modeling system, comprising: a processor and a memory; the processor configured to receive information from an entity and third party information about the entity; the processor configured to receive voice recordings from a telephone call with the entity, the telephone call with the entity including a call center agent voice and an entity voice; a voice analyzer component, executed by the processor, that removes the call center agent voice from the voice recording to isolate the entity voice, separates the entity voice recording into one or more voice recording segments, processes the entity voice in the one or more voice recording segments to identify a plurality of features of the entity voice from the voice 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gain Credit Holdings, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 3 recordings and generate a plurality of voice feature pieces of data; and a predictor component, executed by the processor, that generates a credit risk assessment for the entity based on the voice features piece of data for the entity, the information from the entity and third party information about the entity. REFERENCES Name Reference Date McIntosh et al. US 8,095,369 B1 Jan. 10, 2012 Wasserblat et al. US 2006/0285665 A1 Dec. 21, 2006 Lee et al. US 2007/0016419 A1 Jan. 18, 2007 Gutierrez et al. US 2010/0305960 A1 Dec. 2, 2010 Bezar US 2012/0262296 A1 Oct. 18, 2012 Neuhauser et al. US 2014/0180675 A1 June 26, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 12–15, 20, 23, 24, 35–38, 43, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat and McIntosh. Claims 2, 22, 25, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat, McIntosh, and Gutierrez. Claims 4–9, 11, 27–32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat, McIntosh, and Lee. Claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 39, 40, 42, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat, McIntosh, and Bezar. Claims 16–18 and 39–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat, McIntosh, and Neuhauser.2 2 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4–9, 11, 16–19, 21, 22, 25, 27–32, 34, 39–42, 44, and Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 4 OPINION We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5) that the combination of Wasserblat and McIntosh would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a predictor component, executed by the processor, that generates a credit risk assessment for the entity based on the voice features piece of data for the entity, the information from the entity and third party information about the entity.” The Examiner found that fraud detection system 40 of Wasserblat, which assigns a fraud probability based upon credit history, voice prints, and other data, corresponds to the limitation “a predictor component, executed by the processor, that generates a credit risk assessment for the entity based on the voice features piece of data for the entity, the information from the entity and third party information about the entity.” (Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 19–24.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Wasserblat relates to voice analysis for fraud detection. (¶ 2.) Figure 1 of Wasserblat illustrates a block diagram of the environment for Wasserblat’s system, which includes “site 1” 10 to “site N” 11 (e.g., bank or credit card operator) and fraud detection system 40. (¶ 19.) Wasserblat explains that fraud detection system 40 includes “fraud detection component 44 that checks each interaction transferred by any of selection systems 36 and issues a combined fraud probability for the interaction, taking into account the results generated by fraud detection component 44 and the fraud probability as assigned by selection system 36.” (Id.) Additionally, Wasserblat explains that “[f]raud detection component 44 . . . comprises a 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Appeal Br. 6.) Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived. Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 5 threshold determination component 46 for controlling the tradeoff between false alarms and miss[ed] detect[ion] in the system,” and that such threshold can be based upon account holder credit history. (Id.) Moreover, Wasserblat explains that “[i]f the total fraud or fraud attempt probability exceeds a threshold, a notification is issued.” (Abstract.) In another embodiment, Figure 3 of Wasserblat illustrates fraud detection component 140, including selection component 147, weighting component 151, and voice print collection 152. (¶ 21.) Wasserblat explains that “[s]election component 147 preferably searches for an earlier voice recording or a previously constructed voice print of the same alleged customer” from voice print collection 152 and “[w]eighting component 151 outputs an overall risk level, or combined probability to being a fraud.” (Id.) Moreover, Wasserblat explains that “[t]he voice prints in the selection against which the voice is scored are preferably filtered according to data associated with the interaction, such as area code of calling number, gender, age, language or the like.” (¶ 20.) Because Wasserblat explains that fraud detection system 40 uses weighting component 151 to output an overall risk level for fraud, and also accesses voice print collection 152, which includes data associated with the interaction (e.g., area code of calling number, gender, age, or language), Wasserblat teaches the limitation “a predictor component, executed by the processor, that generates a credit risk assessment for the entity based on the voice features piece of data for the entity, the information from the entity and third party information about the entity.” Appellant argues that “Wasserblat uses that threshold (based in part on the credit history or account holder service level) to filter out interactions Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 6 whose probabilities are less than the threshold” and “[a]s a result, in Wasserblat, not every voice interaction (due to the filtering by the threshold) is used to generate an outcome of an event for the entity.” (Appeal Br. 5.) While Wasserblat explains that threshold determination component 46 controls “the tradeoff between false alarms and miss[ed] detect[ion] in the system” (¶ 19), Wasserblat also explains that such threshold is used to issue a notification (Abstract). Thus, because fraud detection component 44 outputs a combined fraud probability for the interaction, and such threshold is used to issue notifications, Appellant’s argument that “not every voice interaction (due to the filtering by the threshold) is used to generate an outcome of an event for the entity” is unsupported by Wasserblat. Appellant further argues that “this claim element requires that the ‘third party information about the entity’ is used to generate the outcome of the event for the entity that does not occur in Wasserblat.” (Appeal Br. 5.) However, the Examiner also cited to the data associated with the voice prints of Wasserblat, for example, “area code of calling number[s], gender, age, language or the like,” for teaching the limitation “the information from the entity and third party information about the entity.” (Ans. 22.) Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Wasserblat are in error. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wasserblat and McIntosh would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a predictor component, executed by the processor, that generates a credit risk assessment for the entity based on the voice features piece of data for the entity, the information from the entity and third party information about the entity.” Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 7 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 12–15, 20, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 12–15, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 24 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 24, as well as dependent claims 35–38, 43, and 46 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–25, 27–32, and 34–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 12–15, 20, 23, 24, 35–38, 43, 46 103 Wasserblat, McIntosh 1, 12–15, 20, 23, 24, 35–38, 43, 46 2, 22, 25, 45 103 Wasserblat, McIntosh, Gutierrez 2, 22, 25, 45 4–9, 11, 27–32, 34 103 Wasserblat, McIntosh, Lee 4–9, 11, 27–32, 34 Appeal 2020-002376 Application 14/549,505 8 16, 17, 19, 21, 39, 40, 42, 44 103 Wasserblat, McIntosh, Bezar 16, 17, 19, 21, 39, 40, 42, 44 16–18, 39– 41 103 Wasserblat, McIntosh, Neuhauser 16–18, 39– 41 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–9, 11–25, 27– 32, 34–46 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation