DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to the amendments, arguments and remarks, filed on 8/6/2026, in which claim(s) 1-21 is/are presented for further examination.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 15 has/have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 15 has/have been accepted.
Note: The examiner requests that applicant cite where in the specification there is support for applicant’s amendment(s)/addition(s). It will quicken the prosecution if the examiner does not have to search the entire specification to ensure that applicant has not introduced new matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21, filed on 8/6/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21, under 35 U.S.C. 103, see pages 8-10 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 8/6/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al., US 2012/0117036 A1 (hereinafter “Lester”) in view of Myers et al., US 2012/0036163 A1 (hereinafter “Myers”) in further view of JP 5408442 B2 (hereinafter “JP”; Note: Citations are based on the English translation provided/attached).
Claims 1, 8 and 15
Lester discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (Lester, [0029], see computing device 200 including one or more processors), first data comprising a first one or more values and second data comprising a second one or more values (Lester, [0035], see FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4, step 402 of the method shown in FIG. 4 reflects the acquisition of contact related data from the multiple databases (or other sources) [i.e., the contact related data from the first database corresponds to the “first data” and the contact related data from the second database corresponds to the “second data”]. … The acquisition of step 402 may be based on one or more indexing schemes and one or more fields or values of contact information. … ; and Lester, Fig. 4, step 402 “obtain contact data from databases” [i.e., databases is plural, where the contact data from the first database corresponds to the “first data” and the contact data from the second database corresponds to the “second data”]);
determining, at least one value of the second one or more values that does not match at least one value of the first one or more values (Lester, [0044], see, in step 426, a user may be notified of potential issues/errors/discrepancies [i.e., corresponds to “does not match”] associated with contact information. Continuing the above example, when it is determined in step 420 that the instant messenger handle for Maria Rodriguez was likely incorrect [i.e., the instant message handle corresponds to the value that does not match] in entry 304 of FIG. 3A based at least in part on the confidence scores generated in connection with step 414, the user associated with the address book may be notified);
causing an update of the first data to add the at least one value of the second one or more values (Lester, [0045], see, in step 432, one or more suggestions [i.e., adding the one or more suggestions corresponds to “add the at least one value of the second one or more values”] for updating or correcting contact information [i.e., where the contact information corresponds to the “first data”] may be presented to a user. The suggestions associated with step 432 may be presented with the notification of step 426 in some embodiments. Continuing the above example of the instant message handle for Maria Rodriguez having been populated incorrectly, a suggestion such as “the instant message handle should be changed to maria1239781” may be presented to the user. … In some embodiments, based on user preference, suggested contact information may be used to automatically update an address book [i.e., updating the address book/“first data” by adding the value of “maria1239781”/“at least one value of the second one or more values” to the instant message handle for Maria Rodriguez corresponds to “causing an update of the first data to add the at least one value of the second one or more values”]).
Lester does not appear to explicitly disclose extracting a plurality of key values from the first data and the second data, wherein the plurality of key values comprises each value of the first one or more values in the first data and the second one or more values in the second data;
generating, for each key value of the plurality of key values, a list of data groups associated with each key value of the plurality of key values;
determining, for each data group of the list of data groups.
Myers discloses extracting a plurality of key values from the first data and the second data, wherein the plurality of key values comprises each value of the first one or more values in the first data and the second one or more values in the second data (Myers, [0029], see a search is initiated of the plurality of nodes, such as the example first [i.e., using BRI, interpreted as the “first data”], second [i.e., using BRI, interpreted as the “second data”], third and fourth server nodes N1, N2, N3, N4 for one or more data objects corresponding to the one or more key values corresponding to the dimensional specification (step 506), and data is retrieved [i.e., corresponds to “extracting”] from the one or more data objects corresponding to the one or more key values of the dimensional specification from one or more of the plurality of nodes (step 508)).
Lester and Myers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor such as processing data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lester and Myers before him/her, to modify the data of Lester to include the extracting of Myers because it would increase efficiency.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to store data in only a small number of storage nodes because all nodes must be queried independently to ensure efficient computation, see Myers, [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Myers with Lester to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
The combination of Lester and Myers does not appear to explicitly disclose generating, for each key value of the plurality of key values, a list of data groups associated with each key value of the plurality of key values;
determining, for each data group of the list of data groups.
JP discloses generating, for each key value of the plurality of key values, a list of data groups associated with each key value of the plurality of key values (JP, page 10, 1st paragraph, see the intermediate data set combination processing unit 262 determines the order of the series data items between the intermediate data sets 254 from the data set identifier assigned to the intermediate data set 254 [i.e., where each data set identifier corresponds to a “data group”], and combines the intermediate data sets 254 in that order to create a list of values associated with key values and groups);
determining, for each data group of the list of data groups (JP, page 10, 1st paragraph, see the intermediate data set combination processing unit 262 determines the order of the series data items between the intermediate data sets 254 from the data set identifier assigned to the intermediate data set 254 [i.e., where each data set identifier corresponds to a “data group”], and combines the intermediate data sets 254 in that order to create a list of values associated with key values and groups).
Lester, Myers and JP are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor such as processing data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lester, Myers and JP before him/her, to modify the data extracting of the combination of Lester and Myers to include the extracting of JP because it would increase efficiency.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to process a large amount of series data at high speed and efficiently, see JP, page 4, 2nd paragraph.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine JP with the combination of Lester and Myers to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 recite(s) similar limitations to claim 1 and is/are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 8, Lester discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Lester, [0096], see one or more processors); and
a memory storing processor-executable instructions (Lester, [0096], see memory storing instructions).
With respect to claim 15, Lester discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instruction (Lester, [0096], see memory storing instructions).
Claims 2, 9 and 16
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses wherein receiving the first data and the second data comprises receiving the first data and the second data from at least one of: a social network, a personal address book, or a database of contact information (Lester, [0034], see the databases may relate to other address book entries from users of a system or service, message (e.g., email, text message, instant message, phone call, etc.) deliverability logs, phone books (e.g., yellow/white pages), social networking sites, web sites/pages, data licensing providers, and the like. Databases or sources external to a network operator or service provider may be referred to as external sources. Examples of external sources may include phone books, web sites/pages, and the like. Sources internal to the network operator or service provider may be referred to as internal sources. Examples of internal sources may include address books registered with a service provider, web sites/pages (e.g., user pages associated with a social networking service), and the like; and Lester, [0035], see FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4, step 402 of the method shown in FIG. 4 reflects the acquisition of contact related data from the multiple databases (or other sources). … The acquisition of step 402 may be based on one or more indexing schemes and one or more fields or values of contact information. …”).
Claims 3, 10 and 17
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses wherein at least one of the first one or more values and the second one or more values comprise at least one of: a phone number (Lester, [0033], see phone number), an email address (Lester, [0033], see email address), a web address, or a contact name (Lester, [0033], see same contact).
Claims 5, 12 and 19
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses wherein causing the update of the first data to add the at least one value of the second one or more values of the second data comprising causing the update of the first data to add the at least one value of the second one or more values of the second data when an address book is accessed (Lester, [0045], see, in step 432, one or more suggestions [i.e., adding the one or more suggestions corresponds to “add the at least one value of the second one or more values”] for updating or correcting contact information [i.e., where the contact information corresponds to the “first data”] may be presented to a user. The suggestions associated with step 432 may be presented with the notification of step 426 in some embodiments. Continuing the above example of the instant message handle for Maria Rodriguez having been populated incorrectly, a suggestion such as “the instant message handle should be changed to maria1239781” may be presented to the user. … In some embodiments, based on user preference, suggested contact information may be used to automatically update an address book [i.e., updating the address book/“first data” by adding the value of “maria1239781”/“at least one value of the second one or more values” to the instant message handle for Maria Rodriguez corresponds to “causing an update of the first data to add the at least one value of the second one or more values”]; Lester, [0033], see to improve the completeness, accuracy, etc., of an address book; Lester, [0045], see in step 432, one or more suggestions for updating or correcting contact information may be presented to a user and where the suggested contact information may be used to automatically update an address book; and Lester, [0059], see generating suggestions, actions based on the suggestions and/or updating address books).
Claims 6, 13 and 20
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses wherein generating the third data comprises:
determining, for each key value of the plurality of key values, whether the first one or more values or the second one or more values comprises the key value (Lester, [0033] and [0034], see determining whether contact information obtained from multiple sources likely refers to the same contact [i.e., where the same contact means that there are equivalent values in different contact entries]); and
associating, based on the determination of whether the first one or more values or the second one or more values comprises the key value, the first data and the second data (Lester, [0033] and [0034], see determining whether contact information obtained from multiple sources likely refers to the same contact [i.e., where the same contact means that there are equivalent values in different contact entries]).
Claims 7, 14 and 21
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 21, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses wherein associating, based on the determination of whether the first one or more values or the second one or more values comprises the key value, the first data and the second data comprises determining that the first data and the second data comprise data of a threshold quantity of key values (Lester, [0041], see calculating the confidence score and, if a name is entered, that entered name may initially receive a low value or score, particularly if there are number of contacts in the system with the same or a similar name that exceeds a threshold).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Myers in further view of JP in further view of Broden et al., US 2003/0009436 A1 (hereinafter “Broden”).
Claims 4, 11 and 18
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Lester, Myers and JP discloses further comprising wherein generating the third data comprises determining that a value of the first one or more values is equivalent to a value of the second one or more values (Lester, [0033] and [0034], see determining whether contact information obtained from multiple sources likely refers to the same contact [i.e., where the same contact means that there are equivalent values in different contact entries]).
The combination of Lester, Myers and JP does not appear to explicitly disclose generating third data comprising one or more values associated with each key value of the plurality of key values from the first data and the second data.
Broden discloses generating third data comprising one or more values associated with each key value of the plurality of key values from the first data and the second data (Broden, [0067], see generating a dataset DUP of non-redundant family key values embodying KF (i.e., Purchase Order Number) in the Update records S1B [i.e., “first data”], S2B [i.e., “second data”], and S3B [i.e., which means all of the key values from Update records, S1B, S2B and S3B are extracted and placed by the Delta program in DUP dataset [i.e., “third data”]).
Lester, Myers, JP and Broden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor such as processing data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lester, JP, Myers and Broden before him/her, to modify the data extracting of the combination of Lester, Myers and JP to include the comparing/updating of Broden because it allow an efficient way to update data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently update and delete records in a large table in a business data warehouse, see Broden, [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Broden with the combination of Lester, Myers and JP to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
– Kawai, 2011/0179100 for parallel distributed processing.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUBERT G CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1396. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00A-5:00P EST; alt. F 8:00A-4:00P EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HUBERT G. CHEUNG
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 2161
Examiner: Hubert Cheung
/Hubert Cheung/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2161Date: September 29, 2026
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights