DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims and are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
This Action has been made FINAL.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea that do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim1, the claim recites language of:
“resolving record level relationships at an entity level;
determining a unified view of relationships between entities using composite rules on underlying resolved record level relationships;
maintaining, in a rules database of a master data management system, a linkage data structure defining said unified view of relationships between entities;
determining an anchor member for both a first entity and a second entity being linked together based on said determined unified view of relationships between entities, wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record out of all records associated with an entity that is most representative of said entity, wherein said anchor member is determined by executing a comparison of attributed values across said records associated with said entity;
receiving a record transaction involving a creating, updating or deleting of a record of one of said first and second entities; and
automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity.”
a/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong I:
In fact, as above indication, claim 1 recites the limitations of “determining a unified view of relationships between entities using composite rules on underlying resolved record level relationships;” and “determining an anchor member for both a first entity and a second entity being linked together based on said determined unified view of relationships between entities, wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record out of all records associated with an entity that is most representative of said entity”, as drafted, are mental processes because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” steps are covered performance of the limitations in mind (e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s) (e.g., a processor, and/or a memory). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s), then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), part III).
(***Similar above analysis to independent claims 10 and 19, respectively)
b/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong II:
The remaining limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 do not appear to be tied to a practical application so that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of “computer readable storage medium” in claim 10, and “a memory”, “a processor” in claim 19 are generic computing components using as tool(s) for performing the above indicated steps. Also, the additional limitations of “resolving record level relationships at an entity level”, “receiving a record transaction involving a creating, updating or deleting of a record of one of said first and second entities;” maintaining, …, a linkage data structure…”; and “automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity” represent insignificant extra solution activities and that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the steps of “resolving”, “receiving”, “maintaining”, and “synchronizing” do not specify in detail(s) of how data is performed in such “resolving record level relationship at an entity level”, “maintaining,…, a linkage data structure…”, “receiving a record transaction…”, and “automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure…” in the master data management system. Thus, the additional elements and limitations/steps do not amount to significantly more than more than abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
c/ Analysis under Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements of “computer readable storage medium” in claim 10, and “a memory”, “a processor” in claim 19 are generic computing components (i.e., a generic processor performing generic computing functions or instructions, see Mayo, 566 U.S. AT 84). Next, the additional limitations of “resolving record level relationships at an entity level”, “receiving a record transaction involving a creating, updating or deleting of a record of one of said first and second entities;” “maintaining, …, a linkage data structure…;” and “automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity” represent insignificant extra solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions that are well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering and transmitting data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Thus, looking at the additional limitations, as single or combination, add nothing that are the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 recite the same above indicated abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitations of “invalidating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said anchor member of said first entity moving to a third entity and not being made an anchor member of said third entity” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations represent an insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions for “invalidating” the relationship between entities; hence, that is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation of “collapsing a relationship between records so that said records are replaced with a single record in response to said records being duplicated and associated with a same entity” which are not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations represent an insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions for “collapsing” and “replaced” the relationship between records when the records are duplicated and associated with the same entity; hence, that is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362..
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of “wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record with a highest score indicating that said record has the most information” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., “a highest score”. Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitations of “wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record with attribute values that most closely matches attribute values of said entity” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., “attribute values that most closely matches” to other values of the entity/entities. Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 recites the additional limitations of “validating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said record transaction involving a newly created record for said first entity becoming said anchor member of said first entity” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations represent an insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions for “validating” the relationship between entities; hence, that is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites the limitations of “moving said relationship between said first entity and said second entity to being between said second and a third entity in response to said record transaction involving said anchor member of said first entity moving to said third entity and being made said anchor member of said third entity”, as drafted, is a mental process because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “moving” steps are covered performance of the limitation in human mind (e.g., moving the relationship between entities in response to the record transactions involving the anchor member(s)) but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s) (e.g., a processor, and/or a memory). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s), then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), part III).
Claim 8 recites the additional limitations of “performing an entity split operation of said first entity in response to receiving a manual unlink rule thereby forming a new entity being associated with at least one record previously associated with said first entity” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations represent an insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions for “performing an entity split operation” that is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Plus, the claim recites “a manual unlink rule” as tool that does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites the additional limitation of “performing an entity join operation of said first entity and a fourth entity in response to receiving a manual link rule thereby joining said first entity and said fourth entity as corresponding to said first entity, wherein one or more records of said fourth entity are now associated with said first entity after said entity join operation” which is not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations represent an insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than mere instructions for “performing an entity split operation” that is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Plus, the claim recites “a manual unlink rule” as tool that does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitations that tie it to a practical application. Also, it does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For at least above reasons, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bremer et al., US Pub. No. 2020/0134483 A1 (hereinafter as “Bremer”) in view of OBERHOFER et al., US Pub. No.2021/0089520 A1 (hereinafter as “Oberhofer”), and further in view of Hoang et al., US Pub. No. 2007/0156767 A1 (hereinafter as “Hoang”).
Regarding claim 1, Bremer teaches: a computer-implemented method for managing relationships between entities in master data management based systems (pars. [0029] e.g., “The data records may be stored in a graph database as entities with relationships, where each record may be assigned to a node or vertex of the graph with properties being attribute values such as name, date of birth etc. The data records may, in another example, be records of a relational database” and [0032], e.g., “a master data management (MDM)”), the method comprising:
resolving record level relationships at an entity level (par. [0029] e.g., “A record represents an entity, wherein an entity refers to a user, object, or concept about which information is stored in the record. The terms “data record” and “record” are interchangeably used. The data records may be stored in a graph database as entities with relationships, where each record may be assigned to a node or vertex of the graph with properties being attribute values such as name, date of birth etc. The data records may, in another example, be records of a relational database” Such that the data record(s) between the records store in a graph database as entities relationships; par. [0030] “Matching of records comprises comparing attribute values of the records. Matched records (mergeable records) are records that represent the same entity. The level of matching of two records indicates the degree of similarity of the attribute values of the two records” which teaches, based on the degree of similarity, the identifying the duplicate attribute values of the records which need to be resolving, and in combine with the manipulating techniques in par. [0031] teaches the solving/resolving via detecting, merging, collapsing, splitting, and/or replacing record(s) when found to be duplicates to each other, see further in Figs. 2-3);
determining a unified view of relationships between entities using composite rules on underlying resolved record level relationships (par. [0032] e.g., “Data integration involves combining data residing in one or more sources and providing users with a unified view of them…”; and par. [0054] e.g., “A “model” may, for example, be an equation or set of rules that makes it possible to predict a category or to group input data it into clusters. The model is configured to provide a confidence score for each prediction it provides. The confidence score of a prediction may indicate the correctness of the prediction” wherein the set of rules that makes it possible to predict a category or to group input data it into clusters implements as the composite rules, see further in Fig. 2); and
maintaining, in a rules database of a master data management system (par. [0032]: “a master data management (MDM) system”, and par [0054]: “set of rules that makes it possible to predict a category or to group input data it into clusters”), a linkage data structure defining said unified view of relationships between entities (Fig. 2 is shown the linkage data structure, par. [0029] “The data records may be stored in a graph database as entities with relationships, where each record may be assigned to a node or vertex of the graph with properties being attribute values such as name, date of birth etc. The data records may, in another example, be records of a relational database”, wherein the graph database is interpreted as the linkage data structure which is stored/maintained in the master data management system).
Bremer does not explicitly teach: “determining an anchor member for both a first entity and a second entity being linked together based on said determined unified view of relationships between entities, wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record out of all records associated with an entity that is most representative of said entity, wherein said anchor member is determined by executing a comparison of attribute values across said records associated with said entity; receiving a record transaction involving a creating, updating or deleting of a record of one of said first and second entities; and automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Oberhofer teaches:
determining an anchor member for both a first entity and a second entity being linked together based on said determined unified view of relationships between entities (see Fig. 6 and par. [0099] wherein the composite view interpreted as the unified view; Fig. 7 is shown the graph which is interpreted as the unified view in which the root node of Person Name is interpreted as an anchor member, the records nodes of first name, middle name, last name should be interpreted as the entities linked together; and par. [0016] “The system includes program instructions to determine composite view rules for combining first data from a first data record and second data from a second data record to create a composite view in a master data management system.”), wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record out of all records associated with an entity that is most representative of said entity (Figs. 6-7 and par. [0101] “attribute scope (most specific)—applies to instances of a specified attribute; then attribute type scope—applies to instances of a specified attribute type; then record type scope—applies to instances of a specified record type” such that the most specific attribute scope of the records), wherein said anchor member is determined by executing a comparison of attribute values across said records associated with said entity (par. [0023]: “determining what data (attributes) from a plurality of source records related to an entity is used to create or edit the entity. Embodiments use one or more of data quality metrics, regulatory metrics, metadata of the different data sources, and data access policies to compare attributes in the source records to determine a selected value for each of the attributes to include in the entity's composite view”, par. [0024]: “creates a mapping map in accordance with a matching algorithm, the matching algorithm determining a linked source attribute for each of the semantically classified attributes in the MDM model where there is an attribute from the sources with a same semantical classification.” Wherein the mapping/matching algorithm is implemented the executing a comparison of attribute values of data records associated with the entity; Fig. 7 is shown the linkage data structure of the anchor members in root node – Person Name in comparing to other records (e.g., First Name) associated with the entity from in different sources, and further see in par. [0099] for instant details);
receiving a record transaction involving a creating, updating or deleting of a record of one of said first and second entities (see Fig. 5 at element 200 including Record API 260 using for receiving the record transaction, and par [0018] “the system includes program instructions to receive a change to the first data record, and update the composite view to reflect the change to the first data record”; and further in par. [0003] “master data to all touchpoints where a customer can interact with an enterprise. In this scenario, a customer, contact of an organization/supplier, etc., can create, update, and view a portion of the master data record.”; par. [0015] “updating source records with update information applied to an entity in an MDM system that physically materializes the entity's composite view”; par. [0039] “the invention improve the speed at which the master data management system provides a composite view for a user while also allowing the source records to be updated and/or deleted”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Oberhofer would have provided Bremer with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the link/composite view of the anchor member for entities involving the at least one of creating, updating, or deleting of a record in a master data management system (Oberhofer: Figs. 6-7, and pars. [0003, 16-18, and 99-101]).
Bremer and Oberhofer do not explicitly teach the amended limitation: “automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Hoang teaches:
automatically synchronizing said linkage data structure by updating a status of a relationship between said first entity and said second entity in said master data management system (Fig. 1 is shown the linkage data structure, Fig. 2 is shown the entities nodes, and par. [0009]: “the hierarchy manager performs an update operation on a previously stored relationship data set, when it receives a new relationship data set relating to the same relationship as the previously stored relationship data set.”) in response to said record transaction shifting said anchor member of said first entity to a different entity (par. [0010-11] via “merge operation” after perform update=synchronize, wherein “merge” operation for perform merge/join the nodes/links, which shifts root/anchor member entity to different entity/group of entities, see par. [0012]: “the system only collects relationship data sets that specify relationship between different entities associated directly or indirectly with the enterprise”, and further in pars. [0041-43], [0105-106])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Hoang would have provided Bremer and Oberhofer with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the synchronizing/updating the data structure when update the relationship/hierarchy and shift/move/merge node/entity to nodes/entities (Hoang: Figs. 1-2, and pars. [0009-12, 0041-43]).
Regarding claim 3, Bremer teaches:
collapsing a relationship between records so that said records are replaced with a single record in response to said records being duplicated and associated with a same entity (par. [0030] “Matching of records comprises comparing attribute values of the records. Matched records (mergeable records) are records that represent the same entity. The level of matching of two records indicates the degree of similarity of the attribute values of the two records” which teaches, based on the degree of similarity, the identifying the duplicate attribute values of the records which need to be resolving, and in combine with the manipulating techniques in par. [0031] “the merging comprises creating a golden record as a replacement of the similar looking records which have been found to be duplicates to each other. This is known as data fusion or physical collapse with either record or attribute level survivorship. In this first example, the previous duplicate records which get a golden record replacement may be marked as inactive and all future updates are executed against the new golden record. In a second example, the merging of records comprises linking the records which have been identified as duplicates to a new entity record.”).
Regarding claim 4, Bremer and Oberhofer, in combination, teach:
wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record with a highest score indicating that said record has the most information (Bremer: par. [0028] e.g., “ a resolution history with contributions by system tasks (e.g. auto-resolution if a total matching score indicative of the level of matching is above an upper matching threshold of the matching criterion) and clerical tasks resolved by data stewards.”, and par. [0052]; Oberhofer: Figs. 6-7 as shown the anchor/root member; par. [0042] “ranking the source attributes linked to the MDM attribute in the mapping map based on a weighted DQ score”; and pars. [0108] “a composite rule that considers the value of the source attribute with the highest DQ score (indicated by an * to the right of the table) as the highest quality value for that attribute” and [0116-118]).
Regarding claim 5, Bremer and Oberhofer, in combination, teach:
wherein said anchor member corresponds to a record with attribute values that most closely matches attribute values of said entity (Bremer: par. [0029] e.g., “A record represents an entity, wherein an entity refers to a user, object, or concept about which information is stored in the record. The terms “data record” and “record” are interchangeably used. The data records may be stored in a graph database as entities with relationships, where each record may be assigned to a node or vertex of the graph with properties being attribute values such as name, date of birth etc. The data records may, in another example, be records of a relational database”, and par. [0030] e.g., “attribute values of the records”; Oberhofer: par. [0024] e.g., “creates a mapping map in accordance with a matching algorithm, the matching algorithm determining a linked source attribute for each of the semantically classified attributes in the MDM model where there is an attribute from the sources with a same semantical classification. The computer device computes, using the mapping map, a data quality score for each linked source attribute. The computer device ranks the linked source attributes based on the data quality scores.”, and par. par. [0042] “ranking the source attributes linked to the MDM attribute in the mapping map based on a weighted DQ score”).
Regarding claim 8, Bremer teaches:
performing an entity split operation of said first entity in response to receiving a manual unlink rule thereby forming a new entity being associated with at least one record previously associated with said first entity (see Fig. 2 via “thrsh_split; par. [0005] for instance at “the processing comprising merging or keeping separate the compared records” such that the processing of keep separate the compared records is interpreted as the split operation; par. [0026] e.g., “The execution of the task on given records may, for example, result in merging the given records, keeping separate the given records, or splitting the given records if they are merged records”; par. [0031] “…the merging of records comprises linking the records which have been identified as duplicates to a new entity record… if due to the updates on the underlying records for a particular record no match is found anymore, such a record gets unlinked”, and par. [0054] “set of rules”).
Regarding claim 9, Bremer teaches:
performing an entity join operation of said first entity and a fourth entity in response to receiving a manual link rule thereby joining said first entity and said fourth entity as corresponding to said first entity, wherein one or more records of said fourth entity are now associated with said first entity after said entity join operation (see Fig. 2 via thr_merge, and par. [0005] for instance at “the processing comprising merging or keeping separate the compared records” such that the processing of merging records is interpreted as the join operation; ar. [0031] e.g., “the merging of records”, and par. [0054] “set of rules”)
Claims 10, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 1, 3-5, 8-9; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claims 2, 6-7, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang, and further in view of Kamath et al., US Pub. No. 2018/0081905 A1 (hereinafter as “Kamath”) .
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. However, Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang do not explicitly teach: “invalidating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said anchor member of said first entity moving to a third entity and not being made an anchor member of said third entity.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Kamath teaches:
invalidating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said anchor member of said first entity moving to a third entity and not being made an anchor member of said third entity (par. [0129] “Changes may include straightforward revisions (e.g., additions, removals, or modifications) of data or metadata for certain nodes, or more complex examples such as restructuring and/or reorganization of application hierarchies. For instance, a user may initiate a request to move a number of child data nodes from one parent node to another parent node, such as moving N products from one product line to another. As another example, a user may initiate a request to move a parent node (and all of its subnodes) underneath a different parent node, such as moving one product line under another product line. As discussed below, these changes may require a restructuring of at least the application hierarchy containing the affected nodes.” such that the child data nodes are interpreted as the entities, and the parent node is interpreted as anchor member as broadest reasons interpretation. See MPEP 2111, and further in par. [0157] “in response to a determination of an invalid parent, the system may be configured to add a row/node and copy the parent to added node, and to create the valid parent by sequencing the parent ahead of original add node action… a relationship's properties must be loaded… In response to the detection of an invalid entry, the system may delete the grid row as an invalid member, e.g., required/read only/missing properties.” Wherein the properties relationship with the nodes/entities).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Kamath would have provided Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to facilitate the relationship/hierarchy between nodes/entities based on data records be valid or invalid (Kamath: Figs. 2-3, and pars. [0047, 50, 129-131]).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. However, Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang do not explicitly teach: “validating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said record transaction involving a newly created record for said first entity becoming said anchor member of said first entity.” “
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Kamath teaches:
validating said relationship between said first entity and said second entity in response to said record transaction involving a newly created record for said first entity becoming said anchor member of said first entity (Kamath: pars. [0102] e.g., “actions such as creating a new child, moving an existing node, stranded parent, etc. Similarly, the commit phase also may run all the validations, both on entry and just before the request is finally committed to the system.”; and further in pars. [0047], and [0050-51], and [0157] “in response to a determination of an invalid parent, the system may be configured to add a row/node and copy the parent to added node, and to create the valid parent by sequencing the parent ahead of original add node action… a relationship's properties must be loaded… In response to the detection of an invalid entry, the system may delete the grid row as an invalid member, e.g., required/read only/missing properties.” Wherein the properties relationship with the nodes/entities).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Kamath would have provided Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to facilitate the relationship/hierarchy between nodes/entities based on data records be valid/invalid (Kamath: Figs. 2-3, and pars. [0047, 50, 129-131]).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. However, Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang do not explicitly teach:
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Kamath teaches:
moving said relationship between said first entity and said second entity to being between said second and a third entity in response to said record transaction involving said anchor member of said first entity moving to said third entity and being made said anchor member of said third entity (Kamath: par. [0091] “the request object moving between states” teaches record transaction as request moving; par. [0102] “actions such as creating a new child, moving an existing node, stranded parent, etc.”; and further in par. [0129] “Changes may include straightforward revisions (e.g., additions, removals, or modifications) of data or metadata for certain nodes, or more complex examples such as restructuring and/or reorganization of application hierarchies. For instance, a user may initiate a request to move a number of child data nodes from one parent node to another parent node, such as moving N products from one product line to another. As another example, a user may initiate a request to move a parent node (and all of its subnodes) underneath a different parent node, such as moving one product line under another product line. As discussed below, these changes may require a restructuring of at least the application hierarchy containing the affected nodes.” such that the child data nodes are interpreted as the entities, and the parent node is interpreted as anchor member as broadest reasons interpretation. See MPEP 2111).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Kamath would have provided Bremer, Oberhofer, and Hoang with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to facilitate the relationship/hierarchy between nodes/entities according of moving said relationship between entities efficiently (Kamath: Figs. 2-3, and pars. [0047, 50, 129-131]).
Claims 11, and 15-16 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 2, 6-7; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Response to Arguments
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 to claims 1-20 as being abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 9-20) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argued that the claim is not directed to abstract idea of a mental process according the limitations in the claim (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner is not persuaded because under analysis of Step 2A (prong I), claim 1 recites the step of “determining a unified view of relationships between entities using composite rules on underlying resolved record level relationships;” and “determining an anchor member for both a first entity and a second entity being linked together based on said determined unified view of relationships between entities,…”, as drafted, are mental processes because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” steps are covered performance of the limitations in human mind (e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s) (e.g., a processor, and/or a memory). According 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG 2019), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s), then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), part III).
(***Similar above analysis to independent claims 10 and 19, respectively)
Applicant further argued that claim 1 recites additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Remarks, pages 10-20).
Examiner is not persuaded because under analysis of Step 2A (prong II), and Step 2B, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite additional limitations/steps that appear to be tied to a practical application as following reasons:
a/ The additional elements of “computer readable storage medium” in claim 10, and “a memory”, “a processor” in claim 19 are generic computing components that is/are used as tool(s) for performing the steps of “determining”.
b/ The further additional steps of “resolving”, “receiving”, “maintaining”, and “synchronizing” represent insignificant extra solution because the steps of “resolving”, “receiving”, “maintaining”, and “synchronizing” do not specify detail(s) of “how” record level relationship is resolving, a linkage data structure is maintained and synchronized, and a record transaction is received. Thus, the additional elements and limitations do not amount to significantly more than more than abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
c/ Furthermore, these additional steps of “resolving”, “receiving”, “maintaining”, and “synchronizing” do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions that are well-understood, routine, conventional to a skill artisan in the technological environment of “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, e.g., using the Internet to, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, “storing and retrieving information”, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, looking at the additional limitations, as single or combination, add nothing that are the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (see MPEP §2106.05(d)).
For at least above reasons, the rejections are still maintained.
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 (same as to claims 10 and 19) to the newly amended limitations (Remarks, pages 20-22) have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record. Please see the above rejections for details.
In addition, regarding claim 1, examiner respectfully submits that Bremer teaches, discloses, or expressly suggests “set of rules” is interpreted as “a rules database” (par. [0054]), “a master data management system” (par. [0032]: “a master data management (MDM) system”), and “maintaining a linkage data structure defining said unified view of relationships between entities” (see Fig. 2 is shown the linkage graph/tree which is interpreted the linkage data structure, par. [0029] “The data records may be stored in a graph database as entities with relationships, where each record may be assigned to a node or vertex of the graph with properties being attribute values such as name, date of birth etc.”). In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Oberhofer further teaches the amended limitation: “wherein said anchor member is determined by executing a comparison of attribute values across said records associated with said entity” which discloses, or expressly suggests in par. [0023]: “determining what data (attributes) from a plurality of source records related to an entity is used to create or edit the entity. Embodiments use one or more of data quality metrics, regulatory metrics, metadata of the different data sources, and data access policies to compare attributes in the source records to determine a selected value for each of the attributes to include in the entity's composite view”, par. [0024]: “creates a mapping map in accordance with a matching algorithm, the matching algorithm determining a linked source attribute for each of the semantically classified attributes in the MDM model where there is an attribute from the sources with a same semantical classification”: wherein the mapping/matching algorithm is implemented the executing of a comparison of attribute values of data records associated with the entity; Plus, Fig. 7 of Oberhofer is shown the linkage data structure of the anchor members in root node, e.g., “Person Name” in comparing to other records, e.g., “First Name” which is associated with the entity from in different sources, and further see in par. [0099] for instant details.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. See MPEP §2111 – Claim Interpretation, e.g., "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Prior Arts
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica N. Le whose telephone number is (571)270-1009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/Jessica N Le/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights