Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2,4-5,7-8,10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method for..” which recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 18 recites “A system…” therefore is a machine. Claim 20 recites ”A computer-readable medium” therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite limitations “ performing” “extracting” “generating” “based on” selectively granting” are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "transmitting” and “obtaining” this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and "transmitting” and “obtaining "; this limitation is a mere generic response of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Elements are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (processor, database, memory) and basic data-gathering or outputting functions (MPEP 21.96.05(f)) hence reciting insignificant extra solution activities.
The one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "transmitting” and “obtaining” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 2 recites limitations of “comparing” “in response” “in response” which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites limitations of “wherein the machine learnining….”which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites limitations of “wherein the database of name…” which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites limitations of “where in the plurality…” which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites limitations of “wherein the one or more phonetic….”which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites limitations of “a similarity distance…” which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 recites limitations of “wherein the one or more name matching…”which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites limitations of “wherein the second….” which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites limitations of “wherein the second..”which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 recites limitations of “wherein the machine…” which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 recites limitations of “wherein the document…” which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 recites limitations of “wherein the first…” which only recites insignificant extra solution activity and not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites limitations of “compare the similarity..”which are mental processes are limitations and processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations are all steps that are based around comparing between two sounds which is a daily activity performed in the mind. There are no limitations that recite more let alone significantly more and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagota et al. US2021/0342353 in view of Simpson et al. US8132261 in view of Pilgrim et al. US2005/0278080 in view of Goyal US2008/0275874 in view of Baessler et al. US2017/0024697 in view of Willson et al. US2018/0143965 in view of Bhogal et al. US2021/0285653
Regarding claim 1, Jagota teaches: transmitting, by a document management platform implemented by a computing system, a document package associated with a user, wherein the document package includes a document for electronic execution by the user, an indication of a first name of a user (Jagota see paragraph 0003 0015 0078 0091 0096 0097 database on user system to acquire records with names such as ed jones from platform application such that user system can be device and platform application to be implemented on virtual machine or server)
performing, by the document management platform, a name matching operation using a machine learning model to determine whether the first name and the second name are similar based on a similarity score generated by the machine learning model and wherein performing the name matching operation comprises:
generating, by the machine learning model, the similarity score (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 machine learning used to match first and last name and organization name of candidate records and prospective records based on similarity of the names determined by a matching score)
Based on the machine learning model determining that the first name and the second name are not similar, applying, by the document management platform, one or more name matching rules describing constraints for determining whether the second name is an allowed alternative representation of the first name, (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 machine learning to comparing “ed” “jones” and “Dr. Edward” “Jones” and determining that a score that is to be compared to a threshold to determine whether or not a match exists. Determining match based on score reads on matching rules determining whether second name is allowed in alternative representation)
whether the second name is the allowed alternative representation of the first name (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 machine learning to comparing “ed” “jones” and “Dr. Edward” “Jones” and determining that a score that is to be compared to a threshold to determine whether or not a match exists)
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
and one or more permissions defining actions the user is authorized to perform in association with the document package
obtaining, by the document management platform, an indication of a second name from an identity document provided by the user;
extracting, from the first name and the second name, a plurality of features comprising a first metaphone code corresponding to the first name, a second metaphone code corresponding to the second name, a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
generating, the similarity score based on a Levenshtein distance between the first metaphone code and the second metaphone code and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code;
wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a diacritics name matching rule and
selectively, granting, by the document management platform, the user the one or more permissions to perform the actions specified in the document package,including at least the electronic execution of the electronic document based on determining whether the difference between the second name and the first name satisfies the predefined similarity criteria and based on determining
However, Simpson teaches: and one or more permissions defining actions the user is authorized to perform in association with the document package (Simpson see col.2 lines 44-67 col. 3 lines 1-6 63-67 col. 4 lines 1-19 col. 7 lines 1-18 document to include access rights, member definition and control list indicating who has can have read and or write access to document)
obtaining, by the document management platform, an indication of a second name from an identity document provided by the user; (Simpson see col. 3 lines 63-67 col. 4 lines 1-19 col. 7 lines 1-18 access controller determining digital signature matches member definition of control list to allow user access to document such that controller is a combination of software and hardware)
the one or more permissions to perform the actions specified in the document package (Simpson see col.2 lines 44-67 col. 3 lines 1-6 63-67 col. 4 lines 1-19 col. 7 lines 1-18 document to include access rights, member definition and control list indicating who has can have read and or write access to document)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include document access as taught by Simpson for the predictable result of organizing data and controlling document access
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
extracting, from the first name and the second name, a plurality of features comprising a first metaphone code corresponding to the first name, a second metaphone code corresponding to the second name, a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
generating, the similarity score based on a Levenshtein distance between the first metaphone code and the second metaphone code and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code;
wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a diacritics name matching rule and
selectively, granting, by the document management platform, the user including at least the electronic execution of the electronic document based on determining whether the difference between the second name and the first name satisfies the predefined similarity criteria and based on determining
However, Pilgrim teaches: selectively, granting, by the document management platform, the user including at least the electronic execution of the electronic document based on determining whether the difference between the second name and the first name satisfies the predefined similarity criteria and based on determining (Pilgrim see paragraph 0020 0093 0102 if the first identifier is substantially similar to the second identifier, then access is permitted to access files)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include comparing identifiers as taught by Pilgrim for the predictable result of organizing data and controlling access
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
extracting, from the first name and the second name, a plurality of features comprising a first metaphone code corresponding to the first name, a second metaphone code corresponding to the second name, a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
generating, the similarity score based on a Levenshtein distance between the first metaphone code and the second metaphone code and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code;
wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a diacritics name matching rule and
Goyal teaches: extracting, from the first name and the second name, a plurality of features comprising a first metaphone code corresponding to the first name, a second metaphone code corresponding to the second name
generating, the similarity score based on a Levenshtein distance between the first metaphone code and the second metaphone (Goyal see paragraphs 0006 0032 0045 determining matching score based on Levenshstein distance between names based on sound codes from metaphone algorithm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include comparing sounds as taught by Goyal for the predictable result of organizing data and determining similar names
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code;
wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a diacritics name matching rule and
Baessler teaches: wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a diacritics name matching rule and (Baessler see paragraph 0036 name matching based on diacritics)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include diacritics as taught by Baessler for the predictable result of organizing data and determining similar names
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code;
Willson teaches: a first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name, and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name; and
and a Levenshtein distance between the first SoundEx code and the second SoundEx code; (Willson see paragraph 0044 Levenshtein distance based on words in a fixed vocabulary from Soundex representation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include Soundex as taught by WIllson for the predictable result of organizing data and determining similar names
Jagota does not distinctly disclose: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier
Bhogal teaches: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained probabilistic multiclass classifier. (Bhogal see paragraph neural network trained to as multiclass classifier)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include a neural network as taught by Bhogal for the predictable result of organizing data and controlling document access
Regarding claim 2, Jagota teaches: comparing the similarity score with a predefined threshold;
in response to determining that the similarity score is equal to or greater than the predefined threshold, determining, by the document management platform, that the difference between the second name and the first name satisfies the predefined similarity criteria; and (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 comparison based on score and if score is above threshold then it is determined to be match)
in response to determining that the similarity score is less than the predefined threshold, determining by the document management platform, that the difference between the second name and the first name does not satisfy the predefined similarity criteria. (Jagota see paragraph 0080 comparison based on score and if score is below threshold then no such determination of matching is made)
Regarding claim 4, Jagota teaches: wherein the machine learning model is trained using a database of name pairs. (Jagota see paragraph 0022 training the machine learning model can include first name and last name)
Regarding claim 5, Jagota teaches: wherein the database of name pairs includes, for each named pair, an indication of whether the name pair matches and one or more of one or more phonetic indexing metrics; or one or more similarity distance metrics. (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 machine learning used to match first and last name of candidate records and prospective records based on similarity of the names determined by a matching score such that matching score reads on similarity distance metric)
Regarding claim 7, Jagota teaches: wherein the plurality of features includes at least one of: one or more phonetic indexing metrics; or one or more similarity distance metrics. (Jagota see paragraph 0014-0016 machine learning used to match first and last name of candidate records and prospective records based on similarity of the names determined by a matching score such that matching score reads on similarity distance metric)
Regarding claim 10, Jagota teaches: similarity distance between the first name and the second name;
similarity distance between the first metaphone code corresponding to the first name and a second metaphone code corresponding to the second name; or (Goyal see paragraphs 0006 0032 0045 determining matching score based on Levenshstein distance between names based on sound codes from metaphone algorithm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include comparing sounds as taught by Goyal for the predictable result of organizing data and determining similar names
similarity distance between the first SoundEx code corresponding to the first name and a second SoundEx code corresponding to the second name. (Willson see paragraph 0044 Levenshtein distance based on words in a fixed vocabulary from Soundex representation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include Soundex as taught by WIllson for the predictable result of organizing data and determining similar names
Regarding claim 12, Jagota teaches: wherein the one or more name matching rules include at least one or more of a case sensitivity matching rule, a transliteration name matching rule, a name type name matching rule, a special character name matching rule, an initial name matching rule. (Jagota see paragraph 0015 0074 suffix such as “ward”)
Regarding claim 14, Jagota teaches: wherein the second name string is extracted from an electronic identity document. (Jagota see paragraph 0015 0016 record indicating a person and personal information)
Regarding claim 15, Jagota as modified further teaches: wherein the machine learning model comprises a trained neural network. (Bhogal see paragraph neural network trained to as multiclass classifier)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include a neural network as taught by Bhogal for the predictable result of organizing data and controlling document access
Regarding claim 17, Jagota teaches: wherein the first name comprises one or more of a given name, a middle name, or a family name. (Jagota see paragraph 0015 0016 first name and last name)
Regarding claims 18, see rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 2
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 1
Claim(s) 8 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagota et al. US2021/0342353 in view of Simpson et al. US8132261 in view of Pilgrim et al. US2005/0278080 in view of Goyal US2008/0275874 in view of Baessler et al. US2017/0024697 in view of Willson et al. US2018/0143965 in view of Bhogal et al. US2021/0285653 in view of Dutt et al. US2020/0329297
Regarding claim 8, Jagota does not teach: wherein the one or more phonetic indexing metrics is based on English pronunciation
Dutt teaches: wherein the one or more phonetic indexing metrics is based on English pronunciation. (Dutt see paragraph 0056 Soundex or Metaphone which index names by sound as pronounced in English)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include phonetics as taught by Dutt for the predictable result of organizing data and accurately matching
Claim(s) 13, 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagota et al. US2021/0342353 in view of Simpson et al. US8132261 in view of Pilgrim et al. US2005/0278080 in view of Goyal US2008/0275874 in view of Baessler et al. US2017/0024697 in view of Willson et al. US2018/0143965 in view of Bhogal et al. US2021/0285653 in view of Matsumoto et al. US2021/0034853
Regarding claim 13, Jagota does not teach: wherein the second name string is extracted from an image of the identity document captured by the second computing device
Matsumoto teaches: wherein the second name string is extracted from an image of the identity document. (Matsumoto see paragraph 0062 extracting name from image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include email and image as taught by Matsumoto for the predictable result of organizing data
Regarding claim 16, Jagota does not teach: wherein the document package includes an email address
Matsumoto teaches: wherein the document package includes an email address. (Matsumoto see paragraph 0062 extracting email address from image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of field name matching as taught by Jagota to include email and image as taught by Matsumoto for the predictable result of organizing data
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Claims should not be rejected under 101 abstract idea
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. The heart of the claim deals with comparing a first and second name and determining similarity between the two. These steps are steps that could be entirely performed in the mind or using pen and paper hence is an abstract idea. Examiner encourages applicant to hold interview to discuss overcoming 101 issues in light of new guidance.
Applicant’s argument: Prior art does not teach newly amended claims
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is moot as newly amended claims are responded to in the above rejection
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights