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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to communications received 9/16/2025, Applicant, on 2/12/2026, amended claims 1, 15 and 21. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-22 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the 101 rejection is hereby removed for claim 1. However, the 101 rejection remains for claims 15 and 21.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the 102 and 103 rejections are updated below.
Response to Argument
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant analogizes the amended claims of claim 1 and new independent claim 22 to the eligible claims in Enfish. Specifically, Applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to Enfish such that they recite an improvement in the underlying data storage technology by improving efficiency and flexibility in managing data (See Remarks at pg. 13). Examiner agrees. Examiner notes that, similar to the claims analyzed and found eligible in the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision, the amended claim limitations of the present invention recite a specific type of logical data structure designed to improve the identity management platform. Accordingly, the 101 rejection is hereby removed for claim 1. However, the argued amended claim limitations were not included in the amendments of independent claims 15 and 21. Therefore, the 101 rejection remains for independent claims 15 and 21.
With respect to the 102 arguments, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is not recited by the cited reference Achan (See Remarks at pgs. 17-18). Examiner notes that this argument is now moot, as amended claim 1 is now rejected by Achan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0311707, hereinafter referred to as Achan) in view of Orun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2019/0114354, hereinafter referred to as Orun). See the updated rejection below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119I or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365I is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2025 and 2/12/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more edge defining relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein each edge has an associated edge strength indicating confidence that two or more nodes are associated with one another.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the plurality of nodes is referring to “a user cluster node” in plurality, “user profile node” in plurality, the combination of the “user cluster node” and the “user profile node,” or a separate set of plurality of nodes.
Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies noted above, and are therefore rendered similarly indefinite because of their dependency from an indefinite base claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “an identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise, the identity management platform and maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of customers of the retail enterprise.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “retail enterprise” is the same as “an enterprise” introduce in the claim.
Claim limitation “means for configuring memory according to a logical data structure, the logical data structure including: a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes including one node having a cluster identifier and the remaining nodes having individual node identifiers, each individual node identifier corresponding to a record of information; a plurality of edges defining relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of edges has an associated edge strength indicating a confidence that two or more nodes are associated with one another; and means for identifying one or more nodes stored in the logical data structure in response to a request, the request having a desired confidence” in claim 22 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
I Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
I the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for configuring memory according to a logical data structure, the logical data structure including: a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes including one node having a cluster identifier and the remaining nodes having individual node identifiers, each individual node identifier corresponding to a record of information; a plurality of edges defining relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of edges has an associated edge strength indicating a confidence that two or more nodes are associated with one another; and means for identifying one or more nodes stored in the logical data structure in response to a request, the request having a desired confidence” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-
patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed identity management platforms being implemented on at least one computing system in claims 15-21 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 15-21.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 15-21, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements recited in bold):
Claim 15: An identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise, the identity management platform maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of users, the identity management platform comprising: a memory maintaining an identity graph within a database; a processor communicatively connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the identity management platform to manage the identity graph by performing, when executed, a process including: receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a user profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the user profile node being associated with a user account established with an enterprise; in response to the indication of a user profile node: determining, at the identity management platform, whether the user profile node is associated with an existing user cluster, the user cluster including one or more user profile nodes affiliated with the same user; in response to determining that the user profile node is not affiliated with any existing user cluster, creating a new user cluster, wherein creating the new user cluster includes: creating a user cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the user cluster node; and establishing a cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the user profile node.
Claim 21: An identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise, the identity management platform maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of customers of the retail enterprise, the identity management platform comprising: an identity graph maintained within a data storage system including at least one memory, wherein the identity graph includes a plurality of clusters, each cluster being associated with an individual customer and including a customer cluster node and one or more customer profile nodes, each customer profile node being associated with a different customer profile of the customer; a processor communicatively connected to the data storage system and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the identity management platform to manage the identity graph by performing, when executed, a process including: receiving at the identity management platform, an indication of a customer profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the customer profile node being associated with a customer account established with the retail enterprise; in response to the indication of a customer profile node: determining at the identity management platform, whether the customer profile node is associated with an existing cluster within the plurality of clusters; in response to determining that the customer profile node is not affiliated with any existing cluster within the plurality of clusters, creating a new cluster, wherein creating the new cluster includes: creating a customer cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the customer cluster node; and establishing a cluster edge connection between the customer cluster node and the customer profile node; receiving, at the identity management platform, a request for a customer identity, the request having a desired identity confidence; in response to the request, determining a cluster from among a plurality of customer clusters managed by the identity management platform corresponding to the customer; based on the desired identity confidence, providing an identification of one or more customer accounts identified by customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence, wherein the customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence corresponds to fewer than all of the customer profile nodes included within the determined cluster.
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing
human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to observing user profiles to evaluate user affiliations and associated user transactions in clusters, which is a mental process of observing and evaluating sales activities and behaviors. Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a user profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the user profile node being associated with a user account established with an enterprise; receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a user profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the user profile node being associated with a user account established with an enterprise; receiving, at the identity management platform, a request for a customer identity, the request having a desired identity confidence; based on the desired identity confidence, providing an identification of one or more customer accounts identified by customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence, wherein the customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence corresponds to fewer than all of the customer profile nodes included within the determined cluster; establishing a cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the user profile node; etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g., in response to the indication of a user profile node: determining at the identity management platform whether the user profile node is associated with an existing user cluster, the user cluster including one or more user profile nodes affiliated with the same user; in response to determining that the user profile node is not affiliated with any existing user cluster, creating a new user cluster, wherein creating the new user cluster includes: creating a user cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the user cluster node; and establishing a cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the user profile node; in response to determining that the user profile node is not affiliated with any existing user cluster, creating a new user cluster, wherein creating the new user cluster includes: creating a user cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the user cluster node; etc.); storing data (e.g., “a memory maintaining an identity graph within a database;” “maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of customers of the retail enterprise, the identity management platform comprising: an identity graph maintained within a data storage system including at least one memory, wherein the identity graph includes a plurality of clusters, each cluster being associated with an individual customer and including a customer cluster node and one or more customer profile nodes, each customer profile node being associated with a different customer profile of the customer;” etc.); and displaying data and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional
elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for evaluating user profiles to create user clusters based on the user’s identity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0077-0084, that ”the hardware environments disclosed may, for example, represent particular computing systems or computing environments useable within the overall context of the environment described above in conjunction with Fig. 1… a distributed multi-host system 400 represents a possible arrangement of computing systems or virtual computing systems useable to implement the environment… the various host systems 404 at locations 402a-ccan be accessed by a client computing system 410. The client computing system can be any of a variety of desktop or mobile computing systems, such as a desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or other type of user computing system… the computing system 500may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to remote network devices through a network 501, such as a wireless network, the Internet, or another type of network. The computing system 500may connect to the network 501 through a network interface unit 506 connected to the system bus 503. It should be appreciated that the network interface unit 506may also be utilized to connect to other types of networks and remote computing systems. The computing system 500 also includes an input/output controller 508for receiving and processing input from a number of other devices, including a touch user interface display screen, or another type of input device. Similarly, the input/output controller 508 may provide output to a touch user interface display screen or other type of output device.” As additional evidence of
conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (e.g. receiving user profile information and requests for user profile information) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the
Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic
computers and generic computing functions.
The dependent claims 16-20 recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies. Specifically, the dependent claims 16-20 further describes the connection between cluster nodes, as well as the information received within the user profile node. Aside from the additional elements analyzed above, these dependent claims recite observing user profiles to evaluate user affiliations and associated user transactions in clusters, which is a mental process of observing and evaluating sales activities and behaviors. Therefore, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Achan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0311707, hereinafter referred to as Achan).
As per Claim 15, Achan discloses an identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise, the identity management platform and maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of customers of the retail enterprise (See Achan ¶0027 where the computing system is an e-commerce system that maps the identities of customers corresponding to their retail transactions. The back-end device in the system manages the identities in the platform.), the identity management platform comprising:
A memory maintaining an identity graph within a database (Achan: ¶0064-0065: Memory stores the mapped graph of user transaction data to customer profiles.);
a processor communicatively connected to the data storage system and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the identity management platform to manage the identity graph by performing (Achan: ¶0028, 0063-0064), when executed, a process including:
an identity graph maintained within a data storage system including at least one memory, wherein the identity graph includes a plurality of clusters, each cluster being associated with an individual customer and including a customer cluster node and one or more customer profile nodes, each customer profile node being associated with a different customer profile of the customer (Achan: ¶0116-0118: The cluster record corresponds to at least one profile of an individual user. See graph in Fig. 4 where the user cluster corresponds to a user record.);
receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a user profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the user profile node being associated with a customer account established with an enterprise (Achan: See ¶0035 where a profile node is associated with a registered customer account. See graph in Fig. 4 where the user cluster corresponds to a user record of a retail store. See ¶0025-0028 where the computing system is an e-commerce system that maps the identities of customers at the back-end device comprising a database that stores customer profiles. Retail transaction data is received from the front-end device [an enterprise transaction data service] at the back-end device to map the retail transactions.);
in response to the indication of a user profile node: determining, at the identity management platform, whether the user profile node is associated with an existing user cluster, the user cluster including one or more user profile nodes affiliated with the same user (Achan: See ¶0112 where an algorithm is executed to determine whether one or more nodes is associated with multiple customer nodes or the same customer node. See ¶0114-0115 where profile nodes are analyzed for their attributes to determine if the similarities between one or nodes pertains to the same user. See Fig. 9 for the framework of the identity management platform.);
in response to determining that the user profile node is not affiliated with any existing cluster, creating a new cluster, wherein creating the new cluster includes: creating a user cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the user cluster node (Achan: ¶0114, 0117 and 0120: The distance between nodes are subject to a threshold to determine if a customer profile is affiliated to one specific customer profile node, if the distance exceeds the threshold, then a new customer identification is established for the differing customer profile node. Each customer record is subject to unique identification generated from the payment option. See also ¶0040 for the creation of new customer clusters according to transactions); and
establishing a cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the user profile node (Achan: ¶0154: A factor graph establishes an edge connection between a user customer node (e.g. in-store node) and a customer profile node (e.g. node containing types of attributes of one or more profiles).);
receiving, at the identity management platform, a request for a customer identity, the request having a desired identity confidence; in response to the request, determining a cluster from among a plurality of customer clusters managed by the identity management platform corresponding to the customer (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. A confidence subject to a desired threshold is implemented to determine if the evaluated profiles are of the same user or should be clustered into one profile based on if the confidence satisfies said threshold. See requests in ¶0152-0153);
As per Claim 16, Achan discloses the identity management platform of claim 15, wherein the identity graph includes a plurality of user clusters, each user cluster being associated with an individual user and including a user cluster node and one or more user profile nodes, each user profile node being associated with a different user profile of the user (Achan: See ¶0058-0059 and Fig. 14 for identity graph where nodes represent user profiles clustered by an attribute such as a gender or location).
As per Claim 17, Achan discloses the identity management platform of claim 16, wherein each user cluster node is associated to the corresponding one or more user profiles nodes within the user cluster of the plurality of user clusters via a cluster edge connection (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), the records may be merged and transformed into a clustered record.).
As per Claim 18, Achan discloses the identity management platform of claim 17, wherein at least one of the plurality of user clusters includes a plurality of user profile nodes, and wherein two or more of the plurality of user profile nodes are connected to each other via a profile edge connection (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), the records may be merged and transformed into a clustered record.).
As per Claim 19, Achan discloses the identity management platform of claim 15, wherein the indication of a user profile node is received from one or more of user transaction data associated with point of sale devices; user account data associated with a retail payment card account; user account data associated with an online account; or user account data associated with a loyalty account program (Achan: ¶0048-0050: The profile of the user includes an online membership account, credit card account, online website account and/or a physical store credit account.).
As per Claim 20, Achan discloses the identity management platform of claim 15, wherein each user cluster corresponds to a user record of an individual user (Achan: ¶0116-0118: The cluster record corresponds to at least one profile of an individual user. See graph in Fig. 4 where the user cluster corresponds to a user record.).
As per Claim 21, Achan discloses an identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise, the identity management platform and maintaining an identity graph for each of a plurality of customers of the retail enterprise (See Achan ¶0027 where the computing system is an e-commerce system that maps the identities of customers corresponding to their retail transactions. The back-end device in the system manages the identities in the platform.), the identity management platform comprising:
an identity graph maintained within a data storage system including at least one memory, wherein the identity graph includes a plurality of clusters, each cluster being associated with an individual customer and including a customer cluster node and one or more customer profile nodes, each customer profile node being associated with a different customer profile of the customer (Achan: ¶0116-0118: The cluster record corresponds to at least one profile of an individual user. See graph in Fig. 4 where the user cluster corresponds to a user record.);
a processor communicatively connected to the data storage system and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the identity management platform to manage the identity graph by performing (Achan: ¶0028, 0063-0064), when executed, a process including:
receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a customer profile node within the identity management platform from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service, the customer profile node being associated with a customer account established with the retail enterprise (Achan: See ¶0035 where a profile node is associated with a registered customer account. See graph in Fig. 4 where the user cluster corresponds to a user record of a retail store. See ¶0025-0028 where the computing system is an e-commerce system that maps the identities of customers at the back-end device comprising a database that stores customer profiles. Retail transaction data is received from the front-end device [an enterprise transaction data service] at the back-end device to map the retail transactions.);
in response to the indication of a customer profile node: determining, at the identity management platform, whether the customer profile node is associated with an existing cluster within the plurality of clusters (Achan: See ¶0112 where an algorithm is executed to determine whether one or more nodes is associated with multiple customer nodes or the same customer node. See ¶0114-0115 where profile nodes are analyzed for their attributes to determine if the similarities between one or nodes pertains to the same user or to multiple users of the same household. See Fig. 9 for the framework of the identity management platform.);
in response to determining that the customer profile node is not affiliated with any existing cluster within the plurality of clusters, creating a new cluster, wherein creating the new cluster includes: creating a customer cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the customer cluster node (Achan: ¶0114, 0117 and 0120: The distance between nodes are subject to a threshold to determine if a customer profile is affiliated to one specific customer profile node, if the distance exceeds the threshold, then a new customer identification is established for the differing customer profile node. Each customer record is subject to unique Identification generated from the payment option. See also ¶0040 for the creation of new customer clusters according to transactions); and
establishing a cluster edge connection between the customer cluster node and the customer profile node (Achan: ¶0154: A factor graph establishes an edge connection between a user customer node (e.g. in-store node) and a customer profile node (e.g. node containing types of attributes of one or more profiles).);
receiving, at the identity management platform, a request for a customer identity, the request having a desired identity confidence; in response to the request, determining a cluster from among a plurality of customer clusters managed by the identity management platform corresponding to the customer (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. A confidence subject to a desired threshold is implemented to determine if the evaluated profiles are of the same user or should be clustered into one profile based on if the confidence satisfies said threshold. See requests in ¶0152-0153);
based on the desired identity confidence, providing an identification of one or more customer accounts identified by customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence, wherein the customer profile nodes within the determined cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence corresponds to fewer than all of the customer profile nodes included within the determined cluster (Achan: ¶0114-0120: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. A confidence subject to a desired threshold is implemented to determine if the evaluated profiles are of the same user or should be clustered into one profile based on if the confidence satisfies said threshold. The distance between nodes is subject to a threshold to determine if a customer profile is affiliated to one specific customer profile node, if the distance is below the threshold, then the profiles are grouped into one user cluster.).
Claim(s) 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2019/0114354, hereinafter referred to as Orun).
As per claim 22, Orun discloses a data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising: means for configuring memory (Orun: ¶0062) according to a logical data structure, the logical data structure including: a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes including one node having a cluster identifier and the remaining nodes having individual node identifiers, each individual node identifier corresponding to a record of information (Orun: See ¶0025 where the logical data structure referred to as an identity graph has a plurality of nodes representing individual identifiers representing a record of identification elements and contact elements.); a plurality of edges defining relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of edges has an associated edge strength indicating a confidence that two or more nodes are associated with one another (Orun: ¶0046-0047: The context relationships corresponding to a plurality of nodes produce their associated edge strength that further generate the confidence between the plurality of nodes.); and means for identifying one or more nodes stored in the logical data structure in response to a request, the request having a desired confidence (Orun: ¶0048: the nodes stored in the entity identify cluster are subjected to a desired edge confidence threshold to determine whether to include the node in the data structure.).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0311707, hereinafter referred to as Achan) in view of Orun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2019/0114354, hereinafter referred to as Orun).
As per Claim 1, Achan discloses a method of managing a user identity at an identity management platform operable on one or more computing system managed by an enterprise (Achan: Fig. 1), the method comprising:
Configuring a memory according to a plurality of logical data structures (Achan: ¶0122-0124), each logical data structure including: a user cluster including one user cluster node and one or more user profile node affiliated with the same user (Achan: See ¶0034 where it explains that a factor graph is a logical data structure representing a user cluster comprises variable nodes and function nodes. See ¶0047-0051 where variable nodes can include a user profile node (See ¶0051) and user cluster nodes (See ¶0048-0050). Also, see ¶0114-0118 where an algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), the records may be merged and transformed into a clustered record.);
receiving, at the identity management platform, an indication of a user profile node from one or more of a user data service and an enterprise transaction data service (Achan: See ¶0079 where a profile node is associated with a registered customer account receives information indicating a user transaction mapping to the customer profile.);
in response to the indication of a user profile node: determining, at the identity management platform, whether the user profile node is associated with an existing user cluster (Achan: See ¶0112 where an algorithm is executed to determine whether one or more nodes is associated with multiple customer nodes or the same customer node. See ¶0114-0115 where profile nodes are analyzed for their attributes to determine if the similarities between one or nodes pertains to the same user or to multiple users of the same household. See Fig. 1 for an identity management platform.);
in response to determining that the user profile node is not affiliated with any existing user cluster, creating a new user cluster, wherein creating, within the memory, the new user cluster includes: creating a user cluster node within the identity management platform and assigning a unique identifier to the user cluster node (Achan: ¶0114, 0117 and 0120: The distance between nodes are subject to a threshold to determine if a customer profile is affiliated to one specific customer profile node, if the distance exceeds the threshold, then a new customer identification is established for the differing customer profile node. Each customer record is subject to unique identification generated from the payment option. See also ¶0040 for the creation of new customer clusters according to transactions. See ¶0124 where the data sets associated with customer information is stored in memory.); and
establishing a cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the user profile node (Achan: ¶0154: A factor graph establishes an edge connection between a user customer node (e.g. in-store node) and a customer profile node (e.g. node containing types of attributes of one or more profiles).).
Achan discloses a logical structure with edges defining relationships between a plurality of nodes. Achan does not explicitly disclose; however, Orun discloses:
one or more edge defining relationships between the plurality of nodes, wherein each edge has an associated edge strength indicating a confidence that two or more nodes are associated with one another (Orun: See ¶0025 where the logical data structure referred to as an identity graph has a plurality of nodes representing individual identifiers representing a record of identification elements and contact elements. See ¶0046-0047 where the context relationships corresponding to a plurality of nodes produce their associated edge strength that further generate the confidence between the plurality of nodes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Achan with Orun’s edge strengths indicating a confidence the nodes are associated with one another because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards clustering users in factor graphs to uncover relationships between nodes, and because incorporating Orun’s edge strengths indicating a confidence the nodes are associated with one another in Achan would have served Achan’s pursuit of clustering customer information according to a confidence between nodes (See Achan, ¶0117); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication of a second user profile node within the identity management platform, the indication of the second user profile node and the indication of the first user profile node comprising transaction records associated with different payment cards associated with the same user (Achan: ¶0146, 0150-0151: A single user profiles node may be associated with more than one payment options for multiple transactions.); based on a determination of at least one common attribute between the second user profile node and the user profile node, establishing an identity edge connection between the second user profile node and the user profile node; based on establishing the Identity edge connection, creating a second cluster edge connection between the user cluster node and the second user profile node (Achan: See ¶0150 where analyzing the subset of payment options for patterns based on the subset of user identifications associated with a single payment option of the subset of payment options to cluster each user identification of the subset of user identifications into multiple classifications. A logistic regression algorithm can be used in determining a first classification comprising a single user of the one or more users mapped to more than one of the subsets of user identifications. A logistic regression algorithm can also be used in determining a second classification comprising one or more first users of the one or more users mapped to the more than one user identification of the subset of user identifications. See ¶0154 where a factor graph establishes an edge connection between a user customer node (e.g. in-store node) and a customer profile node (e.g. node containing types of attributes of one or more profiles).)
As per Claim 3, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one common attribute includes one or more of a similar name or a shared address or portion of an address (Achan: See ¶0115 where attributes including name and physical address are used to filter similarities for a set of customers.).
As per Claim 4, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising updating a cluster update time maintained within the user cluster node (Achan: ¶0028 and 0040-0041: Incoming profile information may be analyzed to determine similarities between profile nodes. The incoming new function profile node data is used to update the attributes of profile nodes and the clustered connected nodes. This updated information improves the quality of probabilistic inference of the clustered connected nodes.).
As per Claim 5, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving an update to an attribute of the second user profile node; and updating the cluster update time maintained within the user cluster node (Achan: ¶0028 and 0040-0041: Incoming profile information may be analyzed to determine similarities between profile nodes. The incoming new function profile node data is used to update the attributes of profile nodes and the clustered connected nodes. This updated information improves the quality of probabilistic inference of the clustered connected nodes.).
As per Claim 6, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the identity management platform further includes a second user cluster including a second user cluster node and a second user profile node linked to the second user cluster node via a cluster edge connection (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), the records may be merged and transformed into a clustered record.).
As per Claim 7, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving information associated with the second user profile node indicating that the second user cluster node is associated with a same user as the user profile node (Achan: ¶0114-0115: Multiple profiles and customer information is received for similarity validation to associate a profile as the same user.); and in response to determining that the second user cluster node is associated with a same user as the user cluster node: establishing an identity edge connection between the second user cluster node (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. See ¶0117 for confidence for confidence between identified profiles.); deleting the cluster edge connection between the second user cluster node and the second user profile node; establishing a cluster edge connection between the second user cluster node and the user profile node; and deleting the second user cluster node (Achan: ¶0114-0118: When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), deletions may be performed to merge and transform a node into a clustered record.).
As per Claim 8, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, prior to determining that the second user cluster has a plurality of user profile nodes including the second user profile node, the method further comprising: establishing a cluster edge connection between each of the plurality of user profile nodes and the user cluster node (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. When it is determined whether two profiles are the same user or the same household (e.g. part of the same user cluster), the records may be merged and transformed into a clustered record.).
As per Claim 10, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user profile node is associated with an existing user cluster includes determining whether an identity edge connection exists between the user profile node and another user profile node associated with the existing user cluster (Achan: ¶0106: Clustering or grouping e-commerce customers into different classifications based on certain patterns in their transactions. A proposed algorithm identifies a set of customers who use the same payment option, or traceable tender, under more than one customer identification, and distill the set of customers to find two groups of customer identifications: one group of customer identifications that are mapped to a same individual customer and another group of customer identifications that are mapped to customers who are related to each other, e.g., belonging to the same household. See ¶0117 where the algorithm identifies an edge connection exists between more than one profile.).
As per Claim 11, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the identity management platform, a request for a user identity, the request having a desired identity confidence; in response to the request, determining a user cluster from among a plurality of user clusters managed by the identity management platform corresponding to the user identity; based on the desired identity confidence, providing an identification of one or more user accounts identified by user profile nodes within the determined user cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence (Achan: ¶0114-0118: An algorithm performs the similarity validation between two profiles and establishes a connection defined by a distance between attributes. A confidence subject to a desired threshold is implemented to determine if the evaluated profiles are of the same user or should be clustered into one profile based on if the confidence satisfies said threshold. See requests in ¶0152-0153).
As per Claim 12, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user profile nodes within the determined user cluster that satisfy the desired identity confidence corresponds to fewer than all of the user profile nodes included within the determined user cluster (Achan: ¶0114, 0117 and 0120: The distance between nodes are subject to a threshold to determine if a customer profile is affiliated to one specific customer profile node, if the distance is below the threshold, then the profiles are grouped into one user cluster.).
As per Claim 13, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the identity management platform maintains an identity graph including a plurality of user clusters, each user cluster being associated with an individual user and including a user cluster node and one or more user profile nodes, each user profile node being associated with a different user profile of the user (Achan: See ¶0058-0059 and Fig. 14 for identity graph where nodes represent user profiles clustered by an attribute such as a gender or location).
As per Claim 14, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the user profiles of the user include one or more of a credit card account, a loyalty account, an online account, or a store-issued credit account (Achan: ¶0048-0050: The profile of the user includes an online membership account, credit card account, online website account and/or a physical store credit account.).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2020/0311707, hereinafter referred to as Achan) in view of Orun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2019/0114354, hereinafter referred to as Orun) in further view of Milton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2017/0039242, hereinafter referred to as Milton).
As per Claim 9, Achan in view of Orun discloses the method of claim 1.
Achan does not explicitly disclose; Milton discloses wherein creating the user cluster node includes creating the unique identifier, the unique identifier being based on a combination of a timestamp at which the unique identifier is generated, an identifier of a node on which the unique identifier is generated, and a local counter value on the node (Milton: ¶0134: A unique identifier is generated based on a combination of metadata and timestamps. A namespace identifier is a 10-digit value established by a counter. See ¶0097 where cluster nodes are clustered by user identifiers.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Achan with Milton’s method of uniquely identifying clustered users because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards clustering users regarding transaction data with unique identifiers, and because incorporating Milton’s method of uniquely identifying clustered users in Achan would have served Achan’s pursuit of utilizing a unique identifier to map transactions to customer profiles (See Achan, ¶0024); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bax et al. (US 2015/0347591): Disclosed herein is a matching of multiple different social graphs to generate a combined social graph. Such a combined social graph may be searched and used in determining information to provide to a user, for example. An iterative metric learning approach may be used in matching multiple different social graphs. A mechanism is provided to validate a match from different social graphs. Match validation of data field matching is provided.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
/ALLISON M NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625