Promontory Financial Group, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2020003595 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 15/690,811 08/30/2017 Joshua N. Andrews SVL920170082US1_8150-0862 4710 112978 7590 01/04/2022 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 EXAMINER SHAH, BHARATKUMAR S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA N. ANDREWS and THOMAS C. WISEHART JR. Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, and 26-41. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates generally to “database management, and in particular, natural language processing of data entries to establish links to relevant data sets.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, the claimed invention 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 IBM Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 2 relates to identifying data sets relevant to features parsed from a received data entry, generating a link from a parsed feature to an identified related data set, and modifying a data entry to indicate a linked relevant data set change was detected. See Appeal. Br. 14. Claims 1 (method), 26 (system), and 35 (computer program product) are independent claims. Claim 1, which is representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below: 1. A data processing system, comprising: receiving, by the data processing system, a data entry including model rules for compliance; parsing, by the data processing system and using natural language process (NLP), the data entry for features; identifying, by the data processing system and from compliance obligations, data sets that are relevant to one of the parsed features from the data entry; generating, within the data entry and for each of the parsed features, a link from the parsed feature to one of the identified data sets that are relevant to the parsed feature; detecting a change to one of the identified data sets linked to the one of the parsed features; and modifying the data entry to indicate the one of the identified data sets linked to the one of the parsed features has been changed, wherein the model rules are generated by clustering the data sets according to a degree of similarity of identified features within the data sets to generate clusters, and generating the model rules from the clustered data sets that are representative of the generated clusters. Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 3 THE PENDING REJECTION2 Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, and 26-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bastide (US 2017/0004204 A1; Jan. 5, 2017), Ko (US 2017/0068720 A1; Mar. 9, 2017), and Psota (US 2017/0091320 A1; Mar. 30, 2017). Final Act. 3-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s § 103 rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made. Appellant argues the rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a group based on independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 2-6. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, are deemed forfeited and waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Psota teaches or suggests “a data entry including model rules for compliance” and “generating the model rules from the clustered data sets that are representative of the generated clusters.” Final Act. 5-7 (citing Psota ¶¶ 10, 57); Ans. 21-23 (citing Psota ¶¶ 10, 94). The Examiner construes the phrase 2 The Examiner does not explicitly state the basis for the rejection of claim 34, which depends directly from independent claim 26. Independent claim 26 stands rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Final Act. 10. Claim 34 recites an additional limitation identical to the additional limitation recited in claim 13, which depends directly from claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 16, with id. at 19. Thus, we treat the omission of a statement rejecting claim 34 for the same reasons as claim 13 as a harmless clerical error. Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 4 “data entry including model rules for compliance” under the broadest reasonable interpretation as “a data entry including text [that] may include [a] number of things like compliance obligations, standard ethical codes, code of practice, good governance, agreement[,] and much more.” Ans. 21. Therefore, the Examiner finds Psota’s prediction model, which accepts and classifies shipment data from a data entry (e.g., a customs record) into categories, teaches or suggests receiving a “data entry including model rules for compliance.” Ans. 21-22. The Examiner finds Psota’s clustering circuit that operates a scoring model and generates score values teaches or suggests “generating the model rules from the clustered data sets.” Final Act. 7 (citing Psota ¶ 57). Appellant argues Psota’s prediction model itself, which the Examiner states “is a compliance or a rule of the model,” is not a “model rule[] of compliance.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 5). More specifically, Appellant asserts Psota merely mentions a model in the context of the disclosed “prediction model that resolves HTS classification of international shipments,” but Psota’s prediction model does not “involve[] model rules for compliance.” Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant also contends that Psota’s disclosed customs records, which are records related to goods processed by a customs agency, “are not model rules, rules (i.e., a plurality of rules), or rules of compliance.” Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant further argues that Psota’s score value is the result of a scoring model, “it is not a model rule in itself,” and none of the score values are model rules for compliance or used to generate such a model rule. Appeal Br. 11-12. Thus, Appellant’s arguments all are based on the contention that Psota does not teach or suggest “model rules” or “model rules for compliance.” Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 5 We understand the Examiner’s rejection to be based on finding that Psota’s customs records, which include information used to ensure that shipments comply with customs requirements and standards, include model rules for compliance under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Psota uses natural language processing to parse shipment data and then compares the parsed information to established product category systems in order to categorize the shipments. Psota ¶¶ 10, 93-94, 100-102. Thus, we agree that Psota at least suggests parsing a data entry including model rules for compliance because the data is used to categorize shipments in order to ensure proper labeling for purposes of, among other things, properly assessing tariffs that is generally determined by customs rules. E.g., Psota ¶¶ 93-94, 100-102. In other words, the data relates to whether the shipments comply with customs regulations. Notably, beyond reciting that the “model rules of compliance” are (1) generated from, and representative of, clustered data sets and (2) included in the data entry, representative claim 1 does not otherwise reference or use the recited “model rules for compliance.”3 See Appeal Br. 14. 3 Should this matter undergo further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to evaluate whether the fact that the recited data entry includes “model rules for compliance” patentably distinguishes over prior art that receives a data entry that includes other information content. See In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“[N]onfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art.”), aff’d, 191 F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36); Appeal 2020-003595 Application 15/690,811 6 For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Psota teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bastide, Ko, and Psota. As explained above, Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, and 26-41 for the same reasons. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, 26-41 103 Bastide, Ko, Psota 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, 26-41 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv), 41.50(f). AFFIRMED