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.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed 10/8/2025, claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 12, and 14 have been cancelled and no additional claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-11, 13, and 15-20 are currently pending.
The objection to the title has been withdrawn in light of the arguments.
The 35 USC 101 software per se rejections of claims 1-10 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they are integrated into a practical application, arguing that the limitations of amended claim 1 recites a particular machine and architecture that improves both computational efficiency (reducing O(N2) matching) and computer security (retrieval is cryptographically prevented). The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims appear to be broader than this claim construction and do not fully tie the elements together. For example, the claims to not specify how the one-way encrypted datastore is used, it only states that the system comprises one and it is not tied into the other limitations. As another example, the augur engine receives entity identifiers and session IDs and generates a list of matched augur IDs and potential match augur IDs, but the claims do not state that the list is generated in response to the received IDs nor does the claim appear to include any computational efficiency limitations. A potential suggestion would be to tie the claim elements together and integrating (if also tied into the other limitations) the subject matter from dependent claims 6 or 7.
The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “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. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a system (claim 1) and a method (claim 11). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites generating an entity identifier, a session identifier, generating a list of matched IDs and potential match IDs that are session unique, generating a hash for the matches based on the IDs, and an encrypted datastore.
The recited steps store transaction requests into journals, which are acts of data management and storage that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, one can look at two entities, create IDs for them, and determine they are the same and come up with a new ID using the date for the match. The processors, memory, augur engine, and datastore are interpreted as generic computer components which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental processes” grouping.
Dependent claims 4-10 recite additional elements further defining the matches as unique to the session, processing the entities in parallel, using the list of IDs to determine matches, checking the match and generating a new ID for the match, using high-quality entities to improve quality of matches, and using different engines for different entity types. These are all further extensions of the abstract idea or mere extra-solution activity. For example, with claim 5, a person work on matching two entities are the same time.
Claim 11 recites generating an entity identifier, a session identifier, generating a list of matched IDs and potential match IDs that are session unique, generating a hash for the matches based on the IDs, and an encrypted datastore.
The recited steps store transaction requests into journals, which are acts of data management and storage that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, can look at two entity, create IDs for them, and determine they are the same and come up with a new ID using the date for the match. The processors, memory, augur engine, and datastore are interpreted as generic computer components which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental processes” grouping.
Dependent claims 13 and 15-20 recite additional elements of only extracting IDs, processing the entities in parallel, using the list of IDs to determine matches, checking the match and generating a new ID for the match, using high-quality entities to improve quality of matches, and using different engines for different entity types. These are all further extensions of the abstract idea or mere extra-solution activity. For example, with claim 2, a person can only share a name of a match and not any other information; and with claim 5, a person work on matching two entities are the same time.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
For claims 1 and 4-10, the additional elements are the processors, memory, augur engine, and datastore.
For claims 11-20, the additional elements are the augur engine and datastore.
The processors, memory, augur engine, and datastore are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as 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 it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claim elements of using a processor, memory, augur engine, and datastore to perform the steps or the additional elements from the dependent claims amounts to no more than part of the abstract idea, mere extra-solution activity, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 is not further limiting because the limitation for that claim is now incorporated in the corresponding independent claim and are therefore redundant in the dependent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-11, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plush et al. (US2023/0229652), hereinafter Plush, in view of Moser et al. (US2022/0358023), hereinafter Moser, Badrinath et al. (US2023/0289278), hereinafter Badrinath.
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 or timestamp data 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, 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 or timestamp data 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 or timestamp data 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 that this list is unique to the entity that is being matched which is unique to the session is was created or inputted; note this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material as explained in section 2111.05 of the MPEP and does not hold patentable weight);
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. 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).
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 the datastore is encrypted. However, Badrinath is in the same field of endeavor, data analysis and management, and Badrinath teaches:
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. When combined with the previous references this would be for the datastores 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.
Regarding Claim 4:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
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 or timestamp data 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 that this list is unique to the entity that is being matched which is unique to the session is was created or inputted; note this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material as explained in section 2111.05 of the MPEP and does not hold patentable weight);
Regarding Claim 5:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
wherein the entity is a first entity and wherein a second entity is processed in parallel with the first entity (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 6:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
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).
Regarding Claim 7:
Plush as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Plush as modified further teaches:
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 (Plush, Figures 3-4, [0031, 0036, 0055-0056, 0083-0088], 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 determining matching entities, e.g., a first list of matched augur IDs; note this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material as explained in section 2111.05 of the MPEP and does not hold patentable weight) (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; note this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material as explained in section 2111.05 of the MPEP and does not hold patentable weight).
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 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 16 is directed to a method while claim 6 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 17 is directed to a method while claim 7 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
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, and Khurana et al. (US2021/0141920), 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.
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 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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 2152 12/26/2025
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152