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
This Office Action corresponds to application 18/211,236 which was filed on 6/16/2023 and claims benefit of 63/353,007 filed 6/16/2022.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed 4/30/2026, claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 have been amended. Claims 4, 6-7 and 16-17 have been cancelled and no additional claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 18-20 are currently pending.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in light of the amendments and arguments
The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “storing the first list of matched augur IDs in a one-way encrypted datastore with encryption to ensure that whereas a match can occur, data retrieval cannot”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Badrinath teaches, in paragraph 45, a datastore that is encrypted and uses the example of a public-key cryptographic scheme which is an encryption scheme that may be implemented as a one-way encrypted datastore. Public-key cryptographic schemes also provides ways for matches to occur while preventing data retrieval, such as a public-key encryption system where the data is encrypted using a public key and requires the private key to decrypt, but the public-key encryption does not conceal the metadata needed to make the match. Badrinath also teaches, in paragraph 45, that the datastore may store details for each datastore request, such as a name of a corresponding requested datastore, requested names for tables within the requested datastore, and/or other information. Other information can include column names and primary key values for the named columns. When combined with the Augur list teachings of Plush as stated in the rejection below, the stored details of each datastore request and stored other information would include the augur list teachings of Plush. Additionally, Moser teaches, in paragraphs 254-259, calculating a hash value for a set of matched dimension values including a date identifier. When combined with the datastore of Badrinath, using calculated hash values as encryption, would also provide a one-way encrypted datastore with encryption to ensure that whereas a match can occur, data retrieval cannot. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 5, 8-11, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plush et al. (US2023/0229652, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Plush, in view of Moser et al. (US2022/0358023, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Moser, Badrinath et al. (US2023/0289278, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Badrinath, and Haitani et al. (US10430857), hereinafter Haitani.
Regarding Claim 1:
Plush teaches:
A system comprising: generating, by an entity identifier (EID) assignment engine, an EID for an entity (Plush, Figure 3A, [0031-0032], note create resolver trees; note resolver trees have entity IDs/primary keys);
generating, by a session ID generation engine, a session ID for an augur session (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0029, 0031, 0036, 0055-0056], note entity resolver trees comprise additional attribute data such as version, timestamp data, transaction identifiers, etc. which may be interpreted as a session ID);
receiving, by an augur engine, the EID and the session ID and generating, by the augur engine in response to receiving the EID and the session ID, a first list of matched augur IDs and a second list of potential match augur IDs (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0031, 0036, 0055-0056, 0083-0088], note similarity scorer and entity merger may act as an augur engine; note using primary key and other data to determine a match; note when the similarity scorer is determining entity matches, it receives the primary key, e.g., EID, as well as the other information in the resolver tree for that entity, including version, timestamp data, etc. which may be interpreted as a session ID; note using indexing information associated with a resolver tree to identify potential matches, e.g., a second list of potential matching augur IDs; note determining matching entities, e.g., a first list of matched augur IDs; note determine a match is interpreted as a list of one matching entity);
wherein the first list of matched augur IDs and the second list of potential match augur IDs are unique to the session ID (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0031, 0036, 0055-0056, 0083-0088], note similarity scorer and entity merger may act as an augur engine; note when the similarity scorer is determining entity matches, it receives the primary key, e.g., EID, as well as the other information in the resolver tree for that entity, including version, timestamp data, transaction id, etc. which may be interpreted as a session ID and are unique to the entities; note using indexing information associated with a resolver tree to identify potential matches, e.g., a second list of potential matching augur IDs; note determining matching entities, e.g., a first list of matched augur IDs; note that this list is unique to the entity that is being matched, which is unique to the session it was created or inputted);
wherein the first list of matched augur IDs can be used to find shared matched augur IDs prior to generating the first list of matched augur IDs in its entirety (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0031, 0036, 0055-0056, 0083-0088], note using indexing information associated with a resolver tree to identify potential matches. Since the list of potential matches may comprise matches, it is interpreted as an unfinished first list that is used to find shared matched augur IDs prior to the generating of the list of matched augur IDs);
wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity, and a new EID is generated for the match (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0031, 0036, 0055-0056, 0083-0088, 0090], note performing a match check for an entity by searching for matching entities; note using primary key and other data to determine a match; note when the similarity scorer is determining entity matches, it receives the primary key, e.g., EID, as well as the other information in the resolver tree for that entity; note when merging matched entities a new merge identifier is created, which is interpreted as a new EID for the match);
While Plush teaches entity resolution, Plush doesn’t specifically teach a hash generation engine configured to generate a one-way hash of the matched augur IDs and the potential match augur IDs using the session ID; storing the first list of matched augur IDs in a one-way encrypted datastore with encryption to ensure that whereas a match can occur, data retrieval cannot; and wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity using a matched augur ID of the first list of matched augur IDs stored in the one-way encrypted datastore. However, Moser is in the same field of endeavor, information analysis, and Moser teaches:
generating, by a hash generation engine, a one-way hash of the matched augur IDs and the potential match augur IDs using the session ID (Moser, [0254-0259], note using dimension values, which may be identifiers, to compare entities out of a list of entities; note calculating a hash value for a set of matched dimension values including a date identifier, e.g. session ID. When combined with the previous reference, this would be for the augur IDs and potential match augur IDs using the session ID as taught by Plush; note this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material as explained in section 2111.05 of the MPEP and does not hold patentable weight).
wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity using a matched augur ID of the first list of matched augur IDs, and a new EID is generated for the match (Moser, [0254-0259], note using dimension values, which may be identifiers, to compare entities out of a list of entities; note calculating a hash value for a set of matched dimension values including a date identifier, e.g. session ID, as a new EID for the match. When combined with the previous reference, this would be for the augur IDs and potential match augur IDs using the session ID as taught by Plush).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Moser because all references are directed to data management and analysis and because Moser would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data analysis which would improve the efficiency of data analysis by integrating monitoring data from different types of monitoring data sources, having different structures and semantics into a unified observation data space, which may be used as basis for various comprehensive analyses of various kinds (Moser, [0008]).
While Plush as modified teaches entity matching, Plush as modified doesn’t specifically teach storing the first list of matched augur IDs in a one-way encrypted datastore with encryption to ensure that whereas a match can occur, data retrieval cannot; and wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity using a matched augur ID of the first list of matched augur IDs stored in the one-way encrypted datastore. However, Badrinath is in the same field of endeavor, data analysis and management, and Badrinath teaches:
storing the first list of matched augur IDs in a one-way encrypted datastore with encryption to ensure that whereas a match can occur, data retrieval cannot (Badrinath, [0045], note the datastore is encrypted and uses the example of a public-key cryptographic scheme which is an encryption scheme that may be implemented as a one-way encrypted datastore; note the datastore stores details of datastore requests, queries, and associated information. When combined with the previous references the stored information as taught by Badrinath would be the lists as taught by Plush and Moser and the encrypted datastore teachings would be for the datastore as taught by Plush and Moser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Badrinath because all references are directed to data management and analysis and because Badrinath would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the security of the data using an encrypted datastore.
While Plush as modified teaches entity matching, Plush as modified doesn’t specifically teach wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity using a matched augur ID of the first list of matched augur IDs stored in the one-way encrypted datastore. However, Haitani is in the same field of endeavor, data management and information retrieval, and Haitani teaches:
storing the first list of matched augur IDs in a datastore (Haitani, column 9 lines 10-65, note storing a list of matching items in a data store)
wherein the entity is a first entity, a match check is performed between the first entity and a second entity using a matched augur ID of the first list of matched augur IDs stored in the one-way encrypted datastore (Haitani, column 9 lines 10-65, note using a list of stored matched item identifiers, e.g., the first list of matched augur IDs, to find the best match, which is interpreted as a match check. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the entity match check as taught by Plush).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Haitani because all references are directed to data management and information retrieval and because Haitani would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the performance of the analysis by only using the item identifiers from the list of matched items and not the entire data store.
Regarding Claim 5:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
wherein the first entity and the second entity are processed in parallel (Moser, claim 7, note rules can be applied in parallel to the datapoints in the data store. When combined with the previous references this would be processing of the first and second entity as taught by Plush).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Moser because all references are directed to data management and analysis and because Moser would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data analysis which would improve the efficiency of data analysis by integrating monitoring data from different types of monitoring data sources, having different structures and semantics into a unified observation data space, which may be used as basis for various comprehensive analyses of various kinds (Moser, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 8:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
wherein when a subset of unmatched entities remains after the first list of matched augur IDs is generated, the unmatched entities are matched individually against other entities (Plush, figure 4, [0082-0092], note determining matches among potential matches; note that the unmatched entities are used to match other entities in further processing).
Regarding Claim 9:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
wherein high-quality entities are selected and input into the augur engine to enhance match quality for future use (Plush, figures 3-4, [0026-0028, 0082-0092], note determining matching entities using the entity data repository; note the entity data repository can include multiple sources/providers; note data within the repository is interpreted as high-quality entities since it is used to determine matches)
Regarding Claim 10:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
wherein the augur engine is a first augur engine associated with a first vertical entity type, comprising a second augur engine associated with a second vertical entity type (Plush, figures 3-4, note similarity scorer and entity merger may act as an augur engine; note determining entity matching) (Moser, abstract, claim 1, [0019, 0026-0028], note rules are applied based on specific aspects of the environment of the data, e.g., entity type. When combined with the pervious references this would be for the augur engine as taught by Plush).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Moser because all references are directed to data management and analysis and because Moser would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data analysis which would improve the efficiency of data analysis by integrating monitoring data from different types of monitoring data sources, having different structures and semantics into a unified observation data space, which may be used as basis for various comprehensive analyses of various kinds (Moser, [0008]).
Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 11 is directed to a method while claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 15 is directed to a method while claim 5 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 8 respectively, except claim 18 is directed to a method while claim 8 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 8.
Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 9 respectively, except claim 19 is directed to a method while claim 9 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 9.
Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 10 respectively, except claim 20 is directed to a method while claim 10 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plush in view of Moser, Badrinath, Haitani, and Khurana et al. (US2021/0141920, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Khurana.
Regarding Claim 13:
Plush as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
While Plush as modified teaches entity matching, Plush as modified doesn’t specifically teach wherein the only data extractable from the augur engine is the first list of matched augur IDs and the second list of potential match augur IDs. However, Khurana is in the same field of endeavor, data analysis and management, and Khurana teaches:
wherein the only data extractable from the augur engine is the first list of matched augur IDs and the second list of potential match augur IDs (Khurana, [0033, 0042], note access policies restrict file content by obscuring/encrypting unauthorized data. When combined with the previous references this would be for all the entity data as taught by Plush and Moser except for the matched and potential matched augur IDs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Khurana because all references are directed to data management and analysis and because Khurana would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the usability and security of the system by protecting sensitive data using obfuscation/encryption (Khurana, [0033, 0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Trudel et al. (US2018/0276280) teaches identity resolution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trujillo can be reached at 571-272-3677. 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.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 5/2/2026
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights