DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 6/24/2025.
Claims 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 are pending.
Claims 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22-28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380), further in view of Taylor (US Patent 7,403,946).
Claims 15, 21, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380), further in view of Suehs et al. (US Patent 10,268,709).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106; See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Claim 1 recites limitations of (A) “an identity graph stored on one or more storage devices, wherein the identity graph comprises records computationally represented in the storage device by nodes comprising items of personally identifiable information (PIl) about persons and edges connecting nodes that pertain to the same person, and wherein the demographic data in a node in each record comprises a geolocation associated with such person” (B) “a geographically constrained sandbox storage area stored on the one or more storage devices and in communication with the identity graph, the sandbox storage area configured to provide an isolated testing area for modifications to identity graph nodes and edges,” (C) “one or more hardware processors in communication with the one or more storage devices, wherein the one or more storage devices has instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions,” (D) “create a subset of the identity graph, wherein the identity graph subset consists only those records comprising a same geolocation, and storing the identity graph subset in the sandbox,” (E) “add to the sandbox at least one candidate data source,” (F) “combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source using a person formation process to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph,” (G) “ automatically compute persistent identifiers for both persons and PII records in the modified sandbox data graph to maintain continuity with the identity graph subset, wherein computing persistent identifiers comprises: maintaining same identifiers for unchanged PII records and persons; generating new identifiers for new PII records and new persons, and resolving identifier conflicts when existing persons are merged or split,”(H) “outputting a technical analysis results set identifying specific changes to person records between the identity graph subset and the at least one modified sandbox data graph, wherein the changes include at least one of: addition of persons, removal of persons, creation of points of failure, consolidation of persons, or splitting of persons,” and (I) “wherein the technical analysis results set enables improvement of the identity graph by providing quantifiable metrics for evaluating candidate data sources prior to their integration into or removal from the identity graph in a computationally efficient manner that reduces computing resource requirements compared to performing analysis on the complete identity graph.”
Limitations (A), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) recite steps for taking a data graph (i.e., identity graph subset), combining it with a “candidate data source” to create a “modified sandbox data graph”, and outputting results of an evaluation of the change to the records between the initial data graph and the “modified sandbox data graph.” As Applicant notes in the specification, the advantage of the invention is to perform such steps over enormous amounts of data and to do so automatically. Spec at para. 0005. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations would be practically performed by a person in the mind, or by a person using a pen and paper, or by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In this case, a person could perform the limitation with the aid of a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Limitation (A) merely recites an initial data set for which to perform the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Limitation (B) describes a sandbox storage area, which is a temporary or testing environment. A person using copies of data on paper or copies of the data on a computer, would essentially have a “sandbox” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation of having it geographically constrained simply requires that the data copied for testing purposes, be data records that are geographically constrained. For example, data records all having the same geographic location attribute. Limitation (C) describes selecting records from the initial data set based on geolocation, which can practically be performed by a person through observation and copying it to the sandbox/testing environment. Limitation (D) recites adding a candidate data source, which can be adding records, removing records, etc., to the sandbox (i.e., copying the selected records to the test environment). Limitation (E) describes combining the selected records and the records of the candidate data source to form a combined data set, which is then compared in limitation (F) to determine how records have changed between the selected data records and the combined data set. Limitation (G) is directed to steps of managing identifiers are records are changed. For example, adding new identifier when necessary, keeping same identifiers for same persons, and resolving conflicts with record data if a person’s record is merged or split. Limitation (H) is merely data output of a report without specifying how the results set is created and merely describes the contents, which is insignificant extra solution activity because identifying changes is the purpose of the abstract idea. Limitation (I) merely describes the intended result of automating the manual process. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). As discussed above, these steps could be practically performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper or with the aid of a computer as a tool. In regards to the “storage area,” “one or more storage devices” and the “one or more processors” recited in the claim, these components are recited at a high level of generality and do not put meaningful limits on the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as a mental process.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. 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) and 2106.05(a). In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recite a mental process. Limitation (A) recites a step of mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. Limitation (B) recites a storage to be used for testing, but is otherwise recited at a high level of generality that does not put meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Limitations (C) through (H) are recited as being executed by the “one or more processors”. Limitation (I), as noted above, merely describes the intended result /benefit of automating the manual process as described at para. 0005 of the specification. Once again, mere automation of a manual process is insufficient to show an improvement to computer functionality. As discussed above, the manual steps are being performed by “one or more processors” to automate the manual process. As such, these limitations provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the limitations meet each of the elements. Limitation (I) essentially describes the outcome without reciting specific details to how the problem is accomplished. As discussed above, the “processors” are merely a tool to perform an existing process as described at para. 0005 of the specification. Lastly, the limitations do not recite specific steps that convey a particular improvement to the manual process beyond mere automation. As discussed above, the “one or more processors” and the “one or more storage devices” are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology.
Since claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as a mental process and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
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. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper or with the aid of a computer as a tool, as discussed above. The limitations do not recite steps that provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea that amount to an inventive concept and otherwise, simply recites executing the abstract idea on a generic computer. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 2-5
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 2-5 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claims 2-5 recites the additional limitations of (2) “wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons with a postal tie to the same geolocation,” (3) “wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons who are members of a household in the same geolocation,” (4) “wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons having a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation,” (5) “wherein the identity graph subset further consists only of records for persons having recent activity on the phone number with the area code corresponding to the same geolocation.” These additional limitations recite steps of observation and evaluation, which can be reasonably performed by a person with the aid of a pen and paper or with the aid of a computer as a tool. As discussed in regards to claim 1, the step of creating the “identity graph subset” involves evaluating the data records to determine which pertain to the at least one geolocation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “create” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claims 6 and 7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 6 recites the additional limitations of (6) “wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises data to be removed from the identity graph subset” and (7) “wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises data to be added to the identity graph subset.” These additional limitations recite steps of removing or adding data records to the data records of the identity graph subset. These additional limitations are not recited in a manner that provides meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claims 8-10
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 8-10 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claims 8-10 recites the additional limitations of (8) “wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to compute identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox data graph,” (9) “wherein the identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox graph comprise new identifiers for persons present in the at least one modified sandbox data graph but not in the identity graph subset,” (10) “wherein the identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox data graph comprise consolidated identifiers for persons merged in the at least one modified sandbox data graph but who were separate in the identity graph subset.” These additional limitations merely describe the steps of observing and analyzing the data records of the modified data graph and generating appropriate identifiers based on whether there are new records when compared to the “identity graph subset” or whether data records were merged when compared to the “identity graph subset”. These additional limitations are not recited in a manner that provides meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claim 11
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 11 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 11 recites the additional limitations of (11) “wherein the at least one modified sandbox data graph comprises a plurality of modified sandbox data graphs” This additional limitation merely describes the data upon which the abstract idea is performed. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claims 13-18
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 13 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 13 recites the additional limitations of (13) “wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing a person process on the identity graph subset,” (14) “wherein the person process comprises checking for added or removed persons,” (15) “wherein the person process comprises checking for person point of failure reduction,” (16) “wherein the person process comprises checking for consolidations,” (17) “wherein the person process comprises a process to count added touchpoints,” and (18) “wherein the person process comprises a process to check for split records.” These additional limitations recite steps of observation, evaluation, and judgment to determine the various possible differences recited in the additional limitations. These limitations do not provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. As noted in the discussion with regards to claim 1, these steps are practically performed by a person. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claims 19-21
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 19 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 19 recites the additional limitations of (19) “wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing a person plus touchpoint process on the identity graph subset,” (20) “wherein the person plus touchpoint process comprises checking for added or removed persons plus touchpoints,” and (21) “wherein the person plus touchpoint process comprises checking for person plus touchpoint point of failure reduction.” These additional limitations recite steps of observation, evaluation, and judgment to determine the various possible differences recited in the additional limitations. These limitations do not provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. As noted in the discussion with regards to claim 1, these steps are practically performed by a person. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claim 22
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 22 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 22 recites the additional limitations of “wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing an activity process on the identity graph subset to identify active persons”. This additional limitation recites a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment to determine the active persons. This limitation does not provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. As noted in the discussion with regards to claim 1, these steps are practically performed by a person. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claim 23-28 and 32 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 6-10, and 22, respectively. Claim 31 recites the essentially the same subject matter as the combination of claims 19-21 in the form of a method. Therefore, they are rejected for the same respective reasons.
Claims 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22-28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) (Shankar) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380) (Swaminathan).
In regards to claim 1, Shankar discloses a system for performing evolutionary analysis of a data structure, the system comprising:
a. an identity graph stored on one or more storage devices, wherein the identity graph comprises records computationally represented in the storage device by nodes comprising items of personally identifiable information (PII) about persons and edges connecting nodes that pertain to the same person, and wherein each record comprises a geolocation associated with such person (Shankar at paras. 0008, 0024-25, 0027-29)1;
b. a sandbox storage area stored on the one or more storage devices and in communication with the identity graph, the sandbox storage area configured to provide an isolated testing area for modifications to identify graph nodes and edges (Shankar at paras. 0033, 0038, 0046)2; and
c. one or more hardware processors in communication with the one or more storage devices, wherein the one or more storage devices has instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions (Shankar at para. 0059 ) including:
i. storing the identity graph subset in the sandbox (Shankar at para. 0038)3;
ii. add to the sandbox at least one candidate data source (Shankar at paras. 0054-55)4;
iii. combine the identity graph and the at least one candidate data source using a person formation process to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph (Shankar at para. 0055)5;
v. outputting a technical analysis results set identifying specific changes to person records between the identity graph and the at least one modified sandbox data graph, wherein the changes include at least one of: addition of persons, removal of persons, creation of points of failure, consolidation of persons, or splitting of persons (Shankar at paras. 0035, 0043-044, 0046)6;
vi. wherein the technical analysis results set enables improvement of the identity graph by providing quantifiable metrics for evaluating candidate data sources prior to their integration into or removal from the identity graph in a computationally efficient manner that reduces computing resource requirements compared to performing analysis on the complete identity graph.7
Shankar does not expressly disclose the sandbox storage area is geographically constrained as a result of creating a subset of the identity graph, wherein the identity graph subset consists only those records comprising a same geolocation. Shankar does disclose querying the graph database, wherein the result is a subset of the graph database (i.e., creating a subset…). Shankar at para. 0029. However, it is not specified whether the query utilizes demographic attributes, such as geolocation. Shankar also does not expressly disclose automatically computing persistent identifiers for both persons and PII records in the modified sandbox data graph to maintain continuity with the identity graph, wherein computing persistent identifiers comprises: maintaining same identifiers for unchanged PIII records and persons and generating new identifiers for new PII records and new persons. Shankar discloses resolving conflicts when existing persons are merged or split. Shankar at paras. 0043-44.
Swaminathan discloses a system and method for managing employee profiles that have been harvested and aggregated from one or more data sources. Swaminathan at para. 0038. The system allows analysis of all or a subset of the employee profiles, which can be created by demographic information, such as geographical locations. Swaminathan at paras. 0027, 0038. Employee profiles can be updated periodically from data sources. Swaminathan at para. 0118. Swaminathan also discloses profiles are also associated with an identifier (i.e., identifier for both persons and PII records). The identifier is utilized to determine when data pertains to an existing person, in which case the identifier is maintained and unchanged. New identifiers are also created for new persons and profiles. Swaminathan at paras. 0070-72.
Shankar and Swaminathan are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of managing and maintaining profile information of people.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar by adding the feature of the sandbox storage area is geographically constrained as a result of creating a subset of the identity graph, wherein the identity graph subset consists only those records comprising a same geolocation and computing persistent identifiers for both persons and PII records in the modified sandbox data graph to maintain continuity with the identity graph, wherein computing persistent identifiers comprises: maintaining same identifiers for unchanged PIII records and persons and generating new identifiers for new PII records and new persons, as disclosed by Swaminathan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to aid in narrowing down the information used when performing operations, such as, determining whether harvested information pertains to a particular employee. The subset of employee profiles pertaining to the same geographic location can be created for analysis. Swaminathan at para. 0045.
In regards to claim 2, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons with a postal tie to the same geolocation. Swaminathan at paras. 0027, 0048.8
In regards to claim 3, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons who are members of a household in the same geolocation. Swaminathan at paras. 0027, 0048.9
In regards to claim 6, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises data to be removed from the identity graph subset. Shankar at para. 0035.10
In regards to claim 7, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises data to be added to the identity graph subset. Shankar at para. 0035.11
In regards to claim 8, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to compute identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox data graph. Swaminathan at para. 0071.12
In regards to claim 9, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox graph comprise new identifiers for persons present in the at least one modified sandbox data graph but not in the identity graph subset. Swaminathan at para. 0071.13
In regards to claim 10, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the identifiers for persons in the at least one modified sandbox data graph comprise consolidated identifiers for persons merged in the at least one modified sandbox data graph but who were separate in the identity graph subset. Swaminathan at para. 0072.14
In regards to claim 11, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one modified sandbox data graph comprises a plurality of modified sandbox data graphs. Shankar at para. 0038.15
In regards to claim 13, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing a person process on the identity graph subset. Swaminathan at paras. 0070-72, 0118.16
In regards to claim 14, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the person process comprises checking for added or removed persons. Shankar at para. 0035.17
In regards to claim 16, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the person process comprises checking for consolidations. Swaminathan at para. 0072.18
In regards to claim 17, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the person process comprises a process to count added touchpoints. Shankar at para. 0035.19
In regards to claim 18, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the person process comprises a process to check for split records. Swaminathan at para. 0067.20
In regards to claim 19, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing a person plus touchpoint process on the identity graph subset. Swaminathan at paras. 0070-72, 0118.21
In regards to claim 20, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the person plus touchpoint process comprises checking for added or removed persons plus touchpoints. Shankar at para. 0035.22
In regards to claim 22, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage devices has further instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to combine the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph by performing an activity process on the identity graph subset to identify active persons. Employee profile information is updated to stay accurate (Swaminathan at para. 0118). As a result, the employee is considered “active” if their information is kept current.
In regards to claim 23, Shankar discloses a method for performing evolutionary analysis on a data structure, the method comprising:
a. an identity graph comprising a plurality of records wherein each of the plurality of records comprises a plurality of touchpoints each pertaining to a person (Shankar at paras. 0008, 0024-25, 0027-29)23;
b. storing the identity graph subset in a sandbox test storage area configured to provide an isolated environment for testing data modifications (Shankar at paras. 0033, 0038, 0046)24;
c. adding to the sandbox at least one candidate data source (Shankar at paras. 0054-55)25;
d. combining the identity graph subset and the at least one candidate data source using a person formation process to produce at least one modified sandbox data graph (Shankar at para. 0055)26; and
f. outputting a technical analysis results set identifying specific changes to person records between the identity graph subset and the at least one modified sandbox data graph, wherein the changes include at least one of: addition of persons, removal of persons, creation of points of failure, consolidation of persons, or splitting of persons (Shankar at paras. 0035, 0043-044, 0046)27;
g. wherein the technical analysis results set enables optimization of data source selection for the identity graph by providing quantifiable metrics for evaluating the impact of candidate data sources in a computationally efficient manner using a reduced scale test environment.28
Shankar does not expressly disclose creating a geographically constrained subset of the identity graph, wherein the identity graph geographically constrained subset consists only of records pertaining to persons corresponding to a same geolocation and wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprising a plurality of touchpoints, and each of the plurality of touch points for each of the plurality of records pertaining to a person. Shankar does disclose querying the graph database, wherein the result is a subset of the graph database (i.e., creating a subset…). Shankar at para. 0029. However, it is not specified whether the query utilizes demographic attributes, such as geolocation. Shankar also does not expressly disclose computing persistent identifiers for both persons and PII records in the modified sandbox data graph to maintain continuity with the identity graph, wherein computing persistent identifiers comprises: maintaining same identifiers for unchanged PIII records and persons and generating new identifiers for new PII records and new persons. Shankar discloses resolving conflicts when existing persons are merged or split. Shankar at paras. 0043-44.
Swaminathan discloses a system and method for managing employee profiles that have been harvested and aggregated from one or more data sources. Swaminathan at para. 0038. The system allows analysis of all or a subset of the employee profiles, which can be created by demographic information, such as geographical locations. Swaminathan at paras. 0027, 0038. Employee profiles can be updated periodically from data sources, which contain employee profile information (i.e., plurality of records comprising plurality of touchpoints pertaining to a person). Swaminathan at para. 0118. Swaminathan also discloses profiles are also associated with an identifier (i.e., identifier for both persons and PII records). The identifier is utilized to determine when data pertains to an existing person, in which case the identifier is maintained and unchanged. New identifiers are also created for new persons and profiles. Swaminathan at paras. 0070-72.
Shankar and Swaminathan are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of managing and maintaining profile information of people.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar by adding the features of creating a geographically constrained subset of the identity graph, wherein the identity graph geographically constrained subset consists only of records pertaining to persons corresponding to a same geolocation and wherein the at least one candidate data source comprises a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records comprising a plurality of touchpoints, and each of the plurality of touch points for each of the plurality of records pertaining to a person and computing persistent identifiers for both persons and PII records in the modified sandbox data graph to maintain continuity with the identity graph, wherein computing persistent identifiers comprises: maintaining same identifiers for unchanged PIII records and persons and generating new identifiers for new PII records and new persons, as disclosed by Swaminathan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to aid in narrowing down the information used when performing operations, such as, determining whether harvested information pertains to a particular employee. The subset of employee profiles pertaining to the same geographic location can be created for analysis. Swaminathan at para. 0045.
Claim 24-28 are essentially the same as claims 6-10, respectively, in the form of a method and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 32 is essentially the same as the combination of claim 22 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) (Shankar) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380) (Swaminathan), further in view of Taylor (US Patent 7,403,946).
In regards to claim 4, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons having a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation.
Taylor discloses a system and method for data management of a central database. The system provides a central database and a local database where data is updated to the central database when changes are made to the local database. Taylor at col. 3, lines 47-57. The system also provides location distributed data segmentation, where a segment can be based on telephone number area code (i.e., records for persons having a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation). Taylor at col. 11, lines 33-42; col. 12, lines 7-20.
Shankar, Swaminathan, and Taylor are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of managing people records.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar in view of Swaminathan by adding the feature of wherein the identity graph subset consists only of records for persons having a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation, as disclosed by Taylor.
The motivation for doing so would have been to easily segment the data so that only data that needs to be accessed is operated on. Taylor at col. 11, lines 19-22.
In regards to claim 5, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the identity graph subset further consists only of records for persons having recent activity on a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation. Swaminathan does disclose employee profiles contain telephone numbers. Swaminathan at para. 0065. Since the employee profile information is updated to stay accurate (Swaminathan at para. 0118), the employee is considered “active” if their information is kept current.
Taylor discloses a system and method for data management of a central database. The system provides a central database and a local database where data is updated to the central database when changes are made to the local database. Taylor at col. 3, lines 47-57. The system also provides location distributed data segmentation, where a segment can be based on telephone number area code (i.e., records for persons having a phone number with an area code corresponding to the same geolocation). Taylor at col. 11, lines 33-42; col. 12, lines 7-20.
Shankar, Swaminathan, and Taylor are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of managing people records.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar in view of Swaminathan by adding the feature of wherein the identity graph subset further consists only of records for persons having recent activity on the phone number with the area code corresponding to the same geolocation, as disclosed by Taylor.
The motivation for doing so would have been to easily segment the data so that only data that needs to be accessed is operated on. Taylor at col. 11, lines 19-22.
Claims 15, 21, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0212945) (Shankar) in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0316380) (Swaminathan), further in view of Suehs et al. (US Patent 10,268,709) (Suehs).
In regards to claim 15, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose wherein the person process comprises checking for person point of failure reduction.
Suehs discloses a system and method for managing data in a database system and simulating changes in the database prior to committing them. Suehs at col. 2, lines 1-13. The method includes determining whether a column being removed would result in an issue and if so, generating an error (i.e., checking for person point of failure). Suehs at col. 21, lines 17-32.
Shankar, Swaminathan, and Suehs are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of managing people records.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar in view of Swaminathan by adding the feature of wherein the person process comprises checking for person point of failure reduction, as disclosed by Suehs.
The motivation for doing so would have been to make the user aware of potential errors during the simulation of changes to the data records before committing the changes. Suehs at col. 21, lines 1-6.
In regards to claim 21, Shankar in view of Swaminathan discloses the system of claim 20, but does not expressly disclose wherein the person plus touchpoint process comprises checking for person plus touchpoint point of failure reduction.
Suehs discloses a system and method for managing data in a database system and simulating changes in the database prior to committing them. Suehs at col. 2, lines 1-13. The method includes determining whether a column being removed would result in an issue and if so, generating an error (i.e., checking for person point of failure). Suehs at col. 21, lines 17-32.
Shankar, Swaminathan, and Suehs are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of managing people records.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shankar in view of Swaminathan by adding the feature of wherein the person process comprises checking for person point of failure reduction, as disclosed by Suehs.
The motivation for doing so would have been to make the user aware of potential errors during the simulation of changes to the data records before committing the changes. Suehs at col. 21, lines 1-6.
Claim 31 is essentially the same as the combination of claims 19-21 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-11 and 13-22 is acknowledged. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1-11 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C 101
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1-11, 13-28, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges Examiner’s reading of the specification and its interpretation as reasons why the claims are ineligible are incorrect. In particular Applicant argues the background does not describe a “sandbox” and that the manual process described in the background is an explanation of why “hypothetical manual process” is infeasible. Remarks at 11-12. Applicant further argues that while the claims recite an automated process, it is a new process and not an automation of an existing manual process. Remarks at 13. Applicant lastly argues the claims recite specific elements that comprise a sandbox storag