DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 24-26, 28, 30, 32, 34-38, 42, 43 and 47-53 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The previously presented objections to claims 24, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34-38, 42, 43 and 48-53 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment to the claims.
Claims 24-26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 47-53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, lines 24-25 recite the limitation “a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction.” It appears that the limitation should recite “a time of the digital interaction, a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction.” Dependent claims 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 48-53 are objected to on the same grounds since they incorporate the limitations of the independent claims.
Claim 47 recites the limitations "the first mobile phone" and “the second mobile phone” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn as necessitated by cancelling of the claim.
The rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn as necessitated by amendment to the claim.
The rejections of claims 24, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 48-53 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-26, 28, 30, 32, 34-38, 42, 43 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 24 recites a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions, wherein the computing cloud is configured to: provide a web portal for receiving phone records from a user; receive a first phone record via the web portal, the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider; store the first phone record in the data storage; receive a second phone record via the web portal, the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record; store the second phone record in the data storage; map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation for each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database; map the second phone record to the digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database; wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; store the digital interaction database in the data storage; identify a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a record in the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone; and display a visual representation of the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation for each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database; map the second phone record to the digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database; wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; identify a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a record in the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a person mapping records to a table on a piece of paper and then finding all records that match a phone number. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first phone record,” “store the first phone record in the data storage;” “receive a second phone record,” “store the second phone record in the data storage;” “store the digital interaction database in the data storage;” and “display a visual representation of the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining, storing and displaying information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of “the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider” and “the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first phone record,” “store the first phone record in the data storage;” “receive a second phone record,” “store the second phone record in the data storage;” “store the digital interaction database in the data storage;” and “display a visual representation of the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining, storing and displaying information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations are directed to IESA e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitations of “the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider” and “the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 recites a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions, wherein the computing cloud is configured to: provide a web portal for receiving files from a user; receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset via the web portal, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider; select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first mobile phone recorder, wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first mobile phone provider, wherein each digital interaction within the first digital interaction dataset comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number, the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second mobile phone provider that is different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider; and create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction that indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone in the first digital interaction dataset; store the link in the data storage unit; and display a graphical representation of the link.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first mobile phone recorder, wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first mobile phone provider, wherein each digital interaction within the first digital interaction dataset comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number, the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second mobile phone provider that is different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider; and create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction that indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone in the first digital interaction dataset” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a person reviewing sets of phone records provided by a phone carrier and selecting a record. The person can then review the selected record to identify phone numbers in the record. Next, the person can then find all records that contain that phone number and create a link between the records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset;” “store the link;” and “display a graphical representation of the link.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining, storing and displaying information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset;” “store the link;” and “display a graphical representation of the link.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining, storing and displaying information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering and storing required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitation of the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 47 recites receiving a first input phone record, the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider; receiving a second phone record, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider; creating a digital interaction database from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, an mobile phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a mobile phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction, wherein the digital interaction database includes JSON file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database; and identifying a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “creating a digital interaction database from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, an mobile phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a mobile phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction, wherein the digital interaction database that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database; and identifying a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). For example, the limitations encompass a person reviewing sets of phone records and then on paper creating a table for each call or message. The paper that has a table can also have a table mapping fields from the records to the table. The person can then review the table to find all the records relating to a person, where a record represents a phone call. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving a first input phone record” and “receiving a second phone record.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider and JSON file are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving a first input phone record” and “receiving a second phone record.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of obtaining information, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). The limitations of the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider and JSON file are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations and elements fail to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Referring to dependent claims 25, 34, 36-38, 42, 51 and 52, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional limitations in each of the claims are also directed to the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and there are no additional elements to provide an inventive concept.
Referring to dependent claim 26, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional element the claim is generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept.
Referring to dependent claims 28, 30, 32, 43, 48-50 and 53 the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional elements in each of the claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 24-26, 28, 30, 34 and 48-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 9,514,205 to Yazicioglu et al (hereafter Yazicioglu) in view of US PGPub 2014/0129420 to Howe in view of US PGPub 2019/0268465 to Broidy et al (hereafter Broidy).
Referring to claim 24, Yazicioglu discloses a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions (see Fig 1A and column 4, line 65 – column 5, lines 22), wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
provide a web portal [importer graphical user interface] for receiving phone records [cell phones records] from a user (see column 6, lines 50-62; column 7, lines 32-51);
receive a first phone record via the web portal, the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider [subpoenaed cell phone records] (see column 4, lines 29-38; column 5, lines 45-56; column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 10 – Data importer may be configured to receive data and information through network from various devices and systems. For example, data importer may be configured to receive electronic data files including various types of content from clients and other devices and systems. Some non-limiting examples of electronic data files include … subpoenaed social media records, IP logs from service providers, subpoenaed cell phone records ….);
store the first phone record in the data storage (see column 7, lines 32-51 – Data importer 130 may also include one or more source file databases 212. Source file database 212 may be configured to store source electronic data files received by data importer 130 at communications interface 202.);
receive a second phone record via the web portal, the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records [for example, subpoenaed cell phone records] for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second communication provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider (see column 4, lines 29-38; column 5, lines 45-56; column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 10 – Data importer may be configured to receive data and information through network from various devices and systems. For example, data importer may be configured to receive electronic data files including various types of content from clients and other devices and systems. Some non-limiting examples of electronic data files include … subpoenaed social media records, IP logs from service providers, subpoenaed cell phone records …. A further example includes cell phone carrier call records that are received in different formats from each carrier yet all include the same information (e.g., caller, call recipient, call time, cell tower identifier, etc).), wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record (see column 4, lines 29-38 – A further example includes cell phone carrier call records that are received in different formats from each carrier yet all include the same information (e.g., caller, call recipient, call time, cell tower identifier, etc).);
store the second phone record in the data storage (see column 7, lines 32-51 – Data importer 130 may also include one or more source file databases 212. Source file database 212 may be configured to store source electronic data files received by data importer 130 at communications interface 202.);
map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition [file type profile] that defines the transformation from each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database (see column 3, lines 48-60; column 4, lines 13-38; column 8, lines 55-64; column 9, lines 24-31; column 10, line 61-column 11, line 37; column 12, lines 4-12; column 12, line 60 – column 13, line 13; column 17, lines 30-39; column 19, line 29 – column 20, line 47 – The file type mappings may be used to transform the data included in the source electronic data file to conform or match a transformation template, thereby generating a transformed electronic data file. A transformation template may include for example, a canonical format for data fields and data associated with a given data type. A canonical format may define for example, the types of data fields, arrangement and content of data fields, format of the data included in each data field, etc.);
map the second phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition [file type profile] that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database (see column 3, lines 48-60; column 4, lines 13-38; column 8, lines 55-64; column 9, lines 24-31; column 10, line 61-column 11, line 37; column 12, lines 4-12; column 12, line 60 – column 13, line 13; column 17, lines 30-39; column 19, line 29 – column 20, line 47 – The file type mappings may be used to transform the data included in the source electronic data file to conform or match a transformation template, thereby generating a transformed electronic data file. A transformation template may include for example, a canonical format for data fields and data associated with a given data type. A canonical format may define for example, the types of data fields, arrangement and content of data fields, format of the data included in each data field, etc.);
store the digital interaction database in the data storage (see column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 3).
While Yazicioglu teaches creation of an interaction database, Yazicioglu fails to explicitly disclose the claimed structure of the database. Howe teaches gathering call detail records for a plurality of users from a plurality of different sources including the limitations of
receive a first phone record, the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone record (see [0034] – A listing of Call Detail Records (CDR) is retrieved for a plurality of telephone users or subscribers to one or more telecommunications provider);
receive a second phone record, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone record, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider (see [0034] – A listing of Call Detail Records (CDR) is retrieved for a plurality of telephone users or subscribers to one or more telecommunications provider. It is noted that the records are being retrieved from more than one telecommunications provider. Each provider is an entity and therefore each provider is considered to be distinct and different.);
create a digital interaction database [call history table] from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record (see [0034] – An initial call history table with records of both calls placed and received is generated), wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction [date of the call], a time of the digital interaction [time of the call], a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction [a phone number from which the call is dialed], and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction [receiving phone number] (see [0034]-[0048]);
store the digital interaction in the data storage [0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have the interaction database of Yazicioglu to include the fields of date, time, recipient phone number and sender phone number for each interaction in the interaction database as taught by Howe. One would have been motivated to do so since the log records of Yazicioglu can include fields such as sender, recipient and date depending on the type of communication (Yazicioglu: see column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 3).
While the combination of Yazicioglu and Howe (hereafter Yazicioglu/Howe) teaches assigning metadata to the files (Yazicioglu: see column 8, lines 7-9), the creation of an interaction database (Yazicioglu: see column 11, line 49 – column 12, line 20), and the ability to query the database, Yazicioglu/Howe fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of identify a first person associated with a first digital record in the first phone record that corresponds with a second digital record in the second phone file. Broidy teaches the collection and storage of communication records from a plurality of sources, including the further limitations of
create a digital interaction database from digital records, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a time of the digital interaction [call start time and end time], a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction [caller phone number], and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction [callee phone number] (see [0026]; [0039]; [0048]; [0054], lines 1-3 – In a step 208 the speech-to-text system indexes the audio data, based on, for example, the caller’s name or phone number, the callee’s name or phone number, data source, and the like.); and
identify a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a record in the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone (see [0043]; [0055]; [0062]; [0074]; [0075] – The speech-to-text system user interface may support searching for terms or a combination of terms in the transcript or filtering by caller/callee number or metadata values.);
display a visual representation the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone (see [0062] – The keyword filter is entered in the search bar 1001, the filter conditions are selected in the filter area 1003, the matching record count is shown 1002, and the list of matching call summaries are shown in a list 1004. Each record in the list shows the call time, caller/callee, duration, and status indicators for its progress in the processing pipeline.).
Yazicioglu/Howe and Broidy are analogous art since they both relate to analyzing communication records. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to search the database of Yazicioglu/Howe in the manner taught by Broidy. One would have been motivated to do so to efficiently access and search call information via a user interface (Broidy: see [0002]).
Referring to claim 25, the combination of Yazicioglu/Howe and Broidy (hereafter Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy) teaches the computing cloud according to claim 24, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least one of the following: a location of the sender of the digital interaction [location information], a location of the receiver of the digital interaction [location information], a cell tower location associated with a sender of the digital interaction, a cell tower location associated with a receiver of the digital interaction, digital interaction content [indexes the audio data], photos, text, and a duration of the digital interaction [duration] (Broidy: see [0026]; [0039]; [0041]).
Referring to claim 26, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the computing cloud according to claim 24, wherein the computing cloud is configured to receive a cell phone tower dataset that correlates a cell phone tower location with a cell phone tower identifier and wherein the second phone record comprises cell phone tower identifiers associated with at least some of the second plurality of digital records (Yazicioglu: see column 4, lines 29-32).
Referring to claim 28, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the computing cloud according to claim 24, wherein the first phone record is organized differently than the second phone record (Yazicioglu: column 3, lines 16-21; column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 10; column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 20 – The improved data importation systems and methods can import data from electronic data files even when the files include data fields that lack commonality or differ across a given data type.).
Referring to claim 30, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the computing cloud according to claim 24, wherein the first mobile phone provider or the second mobile phone provider comprises a cell phone carrier [voice (telephony) service/cell phone carrier] (Yazicioglu: see column 4, lines 29-32).
Referring to claim 34, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the computing cloud according to claim 24, wherein the first input file or the second input file includes a plurality of records, each of the plurality or records including one or more of the following: an interaction date, an interaction time, a sender name, a sender ID, a sender phone number, a sender email address, a sender username, a receiver name, a receiver ID, a receiver phone number, a receiver email address, a receiver username, a GPS location of the sender, a GPS location of the receiver, a tower location of the sender, a tower location of the receiver, a tower identifier of the sender, a tower identifier of the receiver, and interaction content (Yazicioglu: see column 4, lines 29-32; column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 20).
Referring to claim 48, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the digital interaction database includes a JSON file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database (Yazicioglu: see column 11, lines 29-37).
Referring to claim 49, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the digital interaction database includes an XML file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database (Yazicioglu: see column 4, lines 29-32).
Referring to claim 50, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the digital interaction database includes a key/value pair that includes the following data: data source, data type, provider, date produced, number or account of interest, date of production, and date of processing (Howe: see [0034]; [0035]; Yazicioglu: column 4, lines 13-38).
Referring to claim 51, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the digital interaction database defines connections between fields in the first phone record and the second phone record (Howe: see [0034] and [0035]).
Referring to claim 52, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the digital interaction database defines relationships between two callers between the first phone record and the second phone record (Howe: see [0034] and [0035]).
Referring to claim 53, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the first phone record comprises a single file and the second phone record comprises a plurality of files (Yazicioglu: see column 10, lines 6-9 – In some embodiments, source electronic data files may be compressed or grouped together as a single file. For example, a source electronic data file may be a compressed .zip file containing one or more electronic data files.).
Claims 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 9,514,205 to Yazicioglu et al (hereafter Yazicioglu) in view of US PGPub 2014/0129420 to Howe (hereafter Howe) in view of US PGPub 2019/0268465 to Broidy et al (hereafter Broidy) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2019/0361697 to Hu et al (hereafter Hu).
Referring to claim 32, Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the first input file or the second input file comprises historical mobile phone records for a specific mobile phone. Hu teaches data analytics of large varied data sets, including the further limitation wherein the first input file or the second input file comprises historical mobile phone records for a specific mobile phone (see [0148] – phone call-detail records).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the data content of Hu as one of the types of data content of Yazicioglu/Howe/Broidy. One would have been motivated to do so since tracking an individual is useful to help prevent crime or catch perpetrators (Broidy: see [0003]).
Claims 35-38, 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 9,514,205 to Yazicioglu et al (hereafter Yazicioglu) in view of US PGPub 2021/0049264 to Barrow et al (hereafter Barrow) in view of US PGPub 2014/0129420 to Howe (hereafter Howe).
Referring to claim 35, Yazicioglu discloses a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions (see Fig 1A and column 4, line 65 – column 5, lines 22), wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
provide a web portal [importer graphical user interface] for receiving files from a user (see column 7, lines 32-51);
receive a first digital interaction dataset [for example, subpoenaed social media records] and a second digital interaction dataset [for example, subpoenaed cell phone records] via the web portal [importer graphical user interface], the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider (see column 4, lines 29-38; column 5, lines 45-56; column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 10 – Data importer may be configured to receive data and information through network from various devices and systems. For example, data importer may be configured to receive electronic data files including various types of content from clients and other devices and systems. Some non-limiting examples of electronic data files include … subpoenaed social media records, IP logs from service providers, subpoenaed cell phone records ….).
While Yazicioglu teaches importing files, Yazicioglu fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first communication platform, wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first communication platform; determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either an phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number, the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second mobile phone provider that is different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider; create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction that indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone in the first digital interaction dataset; store the link in the data storage unit; and display a graphical representation of the link. Barrow teaches criminal relationship analysis and visualization, including the further limitations of
select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider (see [0105] – Profile view can be used to allow a user to assign a profile identifier to a data item. Generally, when the user assigns a profile identifier to a data item, computing device can parse the data item – which may be a data artifact – to determine whether the data item contains a unique user identifier, such as an e-mail address, chat service username, phone number, address or the like.), wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first mobile phone provider (see [0048]-[0060] – Examples of artifacts);
determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction (see [0105] - Generally, when the user assigns a profile identifier to a data item, computing device can parse the data item – which may be a data artifact – to determine whether the data item contains a unique user identifier, such as an e-mail address, chat service username, phone number, address or the like.);
search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number (see [0105] – The computing device may then analyze other data items within the data collection to identify instances of the unique user identifier, and assign the same user profile to the data items), the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second mobile phone provider that is different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider (see [0048]-[0060] – Examples of artifacts); and
create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction that indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone in the first digital interaction dataset in the data storage unit (see [0105] – The link is the profile identifier); and
store the link in the data storage unit (see [0105] – The link is the profile identifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to search the interaction database of Yazicioglu in the manner taught by Barrow. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the efficiency of performing forensic searches (Barrow: see [0046]; [0062])
While the combination of Yazicioglu and Barrow (hereafter Yazicioglu/Barrow) teaches assigning metadata to the files (Yazicioglu: see column 8, lines 7-9), the creation of an interaction database (Yazicioglu: see column 11, line 49 – column 12, line 20), and the ability to query the database, Yazicioglu/Barrow fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein each digital interaction within the first digital interaction dataset comprises each of the specific fields. Howe teaches gathering call detail records for a plurality of users from a plurality of different sources including the limitations of
wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction dataset comprises at least a date of the digital interaction [date of the call], a time of the digital interaction [time of the call], a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction [a phone number from which the call is dialed], and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction [receiving phone number] (see [0034]-[0048]); and
create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction that indicates a digital interaction dataset (see [0084]-[0087]); and
display a graphical representation of the link (see [0088] – Relationships between callers being visualized on a social graph.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have the interaction database of Yazicioglu/Barrow to include the fields of date, time, recipient phone number and sender phone number for each interaction in the interaction database as taught by Howe and to also visualize the link in the manner taught . One would have been motivated to do so since the log records of Yazicioglu/Barrow can include fields such as sender, recipient and date depending on the type of communication and also to provide data visualization (Yazicioglu: see column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 3).
Referring to claim 36, the combination of Yazicioglu/Barrow and Howe (hereafter Yazicioglu/Barrow/Howe) teaches the computing cloud according to claim 35, wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
select a third digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset (Barrow: see [0105]);
determine a third digital interaction mobile phone provider from the third digital interaction, the third digital interaction mobile phone provider identifies a party associated with the first digital interaction (Barrow: see [0105]); and
find a fourth digital interaction mobile phone provider within the second digital interaction of a second digital interaction dataset that matches the third digital interaction identifier (Barrow: see [0105]).
Referring to claim 37, Yazicioglu/Barrow/Howe teaches the computing cloud according to claim 35, wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
find a third digital interaction mobile phone provider associated with a third digital interaction of a third digital interaction dataset that matches the first digital interaction mobile phone provider (Barrow: see [0105]).
Referring to claim 38, Yazicioglu/Barrow/Howe teaches the computing cloud according to claim 35, wherein the computing loud is configured to
search a third digital interaction dataset for one or more digital interactions that include a third digital interaction mobile phone provider that matches the first digital interaction identifier (Barrow: see [0105]).
Referring to claim 42, Yazicioglu/Barrow/Howe teaches the computing cloud according to claim 35, wherein the computing cloud is further configured to link the first digital interaction with the second digital interaction (Barrow: see [0105]).
Referring to claim 43, Yazicioglu/Barrow/Howe teaches the computing cloud according to claim 35, wherein the first digital interaction dataset and the second digital interaction dataset are different digital interaction datasets (Yazicioglu: (see column 4, lines 29-38; column 5, lines 45-56; column 6, line 50 – column 3, line 10; Barrow: see [0048]-[0060]).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0129420 to Howe (hereafter Howe) in view of US Patent No 9,514,205 to Yazicioglu et al (hereafter Yazicioglu).
Referring to claim 47, Howe discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first phone record, the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone record (see [0034] – A listing of Call Detail Records (CDR) is retrieved for a plurality of telephone users or subscribers to one or more telecommunications provider);
receiving a second phone record, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone record, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider (see [0034] – A listing of Call Detail Records (CDR) is retrieved for a plurality of telephone users or subscribers to one or more telecommunications provider. It is noted that the records are being retrieved from more than one telecommunications provider. Each provider is an entity and therefore each provider is considered to be distinct and different.);
creating a digital interaction database [call history table] from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record (see [0034] – An initial call history table with records of both calls placed and received is generated), wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction [date of the call], a time of the digital interaction [time of the call], a mobile phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction [a phone number from which the call is dialed], and an mobile phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction [receiving phone number] (see [0034]-[0048]);
identifying a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone (see [0086]-[0088] – The call history data associated with each user is examined to calculate call frequency, call direction, and immediacy of response. This data is then used to determine connections between various callers and strength of their respective relationships.)
While Howe discloses creating a digital interaction database, Howe fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the digital interaction database includes a JSON file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database. Yazicioglu et al teaches creating a digital interaction database from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record (see column 11, line 49 – column 12, line 20), wherein the digital interaction database includes a JSON file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database (column 11, lines 29-37 – Paragraph [0061] of the published specification states that “Each data interaction datasets, for example, may include a JSON File where each row includes a data item transformed (or mapped) from the input file. Therefore, this is construed as the target format of the data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the digital interaction database of Howe include a JSON file as taught by Yazicioglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to transform input data into a plurality of different formats (Yazicioglu: column 11, lines 29-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s 101 rejections follow the updated guidance and the Examiner has determined whether claim limitations can be performed practically in the human mind. The memo states “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,” to be an abstract idea.7 The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).” The human mind is equipped to perform the processes of “map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation for each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database; map the second phone record to the digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database; wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; identify a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a record in the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.” The Applicant argues that it is not practical for a human mind to perform the mapping. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As soon as a person views a piece of paper with phone records on it, the can map the records to fields in a table. During the mapping, the person can also transform, for example, the date into a standard format. A specific collection of data elements does not prevent a person from being able to insert records into a table. Therefore, the processes can be practically performed in the human mind.
Next, the Applicant argues that the updated guidance states that “additional limitation that meaningfully limits the judicial exception can render it eligible.” A limitation that meaningfully limits the judicial exception is determined in Prong 2A, step 2 and Prong 2B. In computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or amount to an inventive concept at Step 2B. As stated in the rejection, the additional limitations do not meet these requirements.
With regards to the close call argument, the claims are ineligible for the reasons stated in the rejection and the arguments presented above.
With regards to the dependent claims, the Examiner has provided analysis. Each of the claims is considered abstract for the reasons of the independent claim and then the additional elements of each dependent claim is rejected for the reason stated.
While the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assessment of Piernot, a different prior art is being utilized to reject the claims as amended. It is noted that it is not a requirement for Piernot or the new reference to search on records with different data structures. The data is first being mapped into a database and then the database is being searched. The mapping is taught by the other prior art references of record.
It is noted that each of the independent claims have different scopes and have been rejected in different manner with regards to prior art and 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No 10,129,705 to Haski et al – Teaches matching the hash of the first client identifier in the signal-information log to the hash of the first client identifier in the API-call log
US PGPub 2015/0341357 to Ranber et al – Teaches monitoring a security reputation associated with a party.
US PGPub 2007/0085710 to Bousquet et al – Teaches gathering forensic data from a plurality of sources and then allowing searches on the collected data.
US PGPub 2018/0246797 to MODI et al
US PGPub 2016/006992 to Chen et al - Paragraph [0050] discusses using a web-based portal to upload data to the cloud.
US PGPub 2011/0319052 – Teaches using communication records to link users to one another.
US PGPub 2012/0047247 to Piernot – Piernot teaches the collection and storage of communication records from a plurality of sources, including the further limitations of create a digital interaction database [index database] from digital records [captured data] (The data traffic search system may capture all incoming and outgoing data traffic between the user devices and the end devices. The data traffic search system indexes the data traffic and makes the indexed data traffic searchable.), wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction [date], a time of the digital interaction [time] (see [0029] and [0035], lines 18-22); and identify a first person associated with the first phone record that corresponds with a record in the second phone record and indicates a digital interaction between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone (see [0001]; [0029]; [0030], lines 9-11; [0035], lines 22-26; [0039]; [0041] – The data traffic search system may capture all incoming and outgoing data traffic between the user devices and the end devices. The data traffic search engine is configured to perform contextual searches using the indexed data in response to user requests via the API. Thus, the API is used by the authorized users to interface with the data traffic search system to perform data traffic searching. In another embodiment, the data traffic is indexed and matched to a particular user rather than to a specific user device. Searching for all the records that relate to a particular user device); and display a visual representation the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone (see [0029]; [0042] – The indexed data traffic can be made accessible to users through the data search system or through any other interface. The results relating to the query of the indexed data traffic are sent to user.).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights