DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office is in response to the claimed amendment filed on December 31, 2025, in which claim 2 was canceled and claims 1, and 3-20 are presented for further examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 31, 2025, with respect to claims 1, and 3-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the last office action have been withdrawn.
After further reviewed applicant’s arguments in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, it is conceivable that the claimed amendment filed on December 31, 2025 is integrated into a practical application that renders claims 1 and 3-20 eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim1 and 3-20 are 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. The claims (1 and 15) recite “transaction message”. The transaction message needs to be defined in the claims in order to be consistent with the original specification.
The claims (1 and 15) recite “executing a decision tree, which is trained using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a second data storage, to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters”. It is not clear as what “second data storage” the applicant is referred to, since a first data storage is not previously mentioned.
The claims (1 and 15) would read better as “training a decision tree using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a first data storage to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters”.
The claims (1 and 15) recite “responsive to determining that the data value has the expected data format, searching, by the server computer, a first data storage for other transaction messages that comprise the data value”. It is unclear as whether “a first data storage” is different or same as the second data storage” mentioned in the previous limitation.
Also the claims (1 and 15) are indefinite or do not provide any end result under the condition when determining that the data value does not have the expected data format.
The claims (1 and 15) recite “when the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage does not exceed the predetermined number and/or frequency, not storing the transaction message comprising the data value in the second data storage”. The claims are infinite because there is no end result under the condition when the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage does not exceed the predetermined number and/or frequency, because there is no transaction message in the second data storage.
The claims (1 and 15) recite “updating the decision tree by executing the machine learning process with additional transaction data”. It is unclear as when and what trigger the decision tree to be updated and additional transaction data is required for the machine learning process to execute to update the decision tree.
Claims 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claims 1 and 15 are recites the limitation “executing a decision tree, which is trained using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a second data storage, to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a first data storage” is not previously mentioned.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 as best understood by the examiner are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al., (hereinafter “Richardson”) US 20230214369 in view of Singh et al., (hereinafter “Singh”) US 9262451 and Bain et al., (hereinafter “Bain”( US 2020/0372081.
As to claim 1, Richardson discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a server computer, a transaction message comprising a data value in a data field (see [0050]-[0055], receive data from any data source) ;
determining, by the server computer, a code table associated with the data field (see [0052]-[0055], if a data of a product has the wrong dimensions for the product);
determining, by the server computer, that the data value is not present within the code table (see [0057]-[0059], determine anomalies in the integrated data by detecting one or more outliers in a single feature);
when the data value is not present within the code table, searching, by the server computer, a first data storage for other transaction messages that comprise the data value (see [0057]-[0059], detect anomalies in the integrated data by detecting one or more outliers by analyzing a plurality of features); and
in response to searching, determining, by the server computer, if a number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds a predetermined number and/or frequency (see [0059-]-[0060]).
Richardson discloses the claimed when the number of transactions messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds the predetermined number and/or frequency (see [0064]-[0065], determines and/or assign a quality rating (e.g., a data quality risk score (DQRS)) to the individual records and/or datasets and classifies a DQRS as low, medium, or high
Richardson does not explicitly disclose the claimed “storing the transaction message comprising the data value in a second data storage”.
Meanwhile, Singh discloses the claimed “storing the transaction message comprising the data value in a second data storage” (see col.1, line 58-col.2, line 20, data produced or provided by one entity is stored in a data warehouse).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Richardson to store the transaction in a data warehouse, in order to provide information regarding the data quality checking and correction services just performed to the cost allocation server.
Neither Richardson nor Singh discloses the claimed executing a decision tree, which is trained using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a second data storage, to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters; and updating the decision tree by executing the machine learning process with additional transaction data
However, the claimed “executing a decision tree, which is trained using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a second data storage, to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters; and updating the decision tree by executing the machine learning process with additional transaction data” are contingent limitations. According to Ex Parte Schulhauser, the above claimed elements do not have to recite in the combination of Richardson and Singh.
Meanwhile. Bain discloses the claimed “executing a decision tree, which is trained using a machine learning process on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in a second data storage, to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters; and updating the decision tree by executing the machine learning process with additional transaction data” (see [0043], machine learning engine therein, allows system to automatically and readily adapt to changing values and characteristics in data, which is especially valuable given the dynamic nature of data over time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the combined system of Richardson and Singh to train the machine learning process to determine that a format of the data value is an expected data format, in order to recognize expected data formats ensuring high-quality input, directly increasing model accuracy, reliability, and performance.
As to claim 3, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Singh discloses the claimed wherein the second data storage is a data lake or a data warehouse (see col.2, lines 9-20, provide data to a data warehouse service for storage, such as provided by a data warehouse server).
As to claim 4, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein the first data storage stores data related to a plurality of transaction messages comprising the data value in the data field, the data value not being within the code table associated with the data field (see [0053]-[0056]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein in response to searching, the server computer determines that the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds the predetermined number (see [0053]-[0056]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein in response to searching, the server computer determines that the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds the frequency (see [0057]-[0058], detect an anomaly by determining that a zip code does not match other information).
As to claim 7, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein in response to searching, the server computer determines that the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds the predetermined number and the frequency (see [0056]-[0057]).
As to claim 8, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed before searching the first data storage: when the data value is not present within the code table, determining a format of the data value is not an expected data format for the data field, the expected data format being a number and/or type of characters (see [0051]-[0053])
As to claim 9, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed when the format of the data value is not the expected data format for the data field, storing information related to the transaction message in the first data storage (see [0052]-[0053]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed in response to searching, determining by the server computer, that the number of transaction messages with the data value in the first data storage does not exceed the predetermined number and/or frequency; and when the number of transactions messages with the data value in the first data storage does not exceed the predetermined number and/or frequency, then not storing the transaction message comprising the data value in the second data storage (see [0038], if an error is detected because corresponding data entries from different data sources do not match, the correct unit determine which data record is correct (e.g., is believed to be correct at a confidence level, such as 95%)).
As to claim 11, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed storing the data value in the code table (see [0041], . repair errors in data by changing a data record to a record determined to be correct by the correct unit).
As to claim 12, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein when the number of transactions messages with the data value in the first data storage does not exceed the predetermined number and/or frequency, storing information related to the transaction message in the first data storage (see [0038], if an error is detected because corresponding data entries from different data sources do not match, the correct unit determine which data record is correct (e.g., is believed to be correct at a confidence level, such as 95%)).
As to claim 13, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed wherein the predetermined number and frequency is determined by a machine learning model trained on data related to a plurality of transaction messages stored in the second data storage (see [0025] and [0033]-[0036]).
As to claim 14, the combination of Richardson, Singh and Bain discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Richardson discloses the claimed when the number of transactions messages with the data value in the first data storage exceeds the predetermined number and/or frequency, storing in the second data storage the plurality of transaction messages comprising the data value in the data field, the data value not being within the code table associated with the data field (see [0033], determining that a data record from one data source does not match a corresponding data record from another data source) .
As to claims 15-20, claims 15-20 are server computer for performing the method of claims 1 and 3-14 above. They are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,269,741 (involved in a request to update an original data value in a first row in a database table in a database system. An updated data value is written to a second row in a staging table in the database system. The updated data value corresponds with the original data value. The first row includes a database table key, which is also included in the second row. The original data value in the database table is replaced with a corresponding replacement value, which is determined based on a value replacement update function that takes as input the updated data value. The staging table maintains a record value for reversing the update to the database table).
US 20240235838 A1 (involved in receiving an authorization request message for a transaction by a processing system, where the authorization request message comprises a token, a verification value and data elements in data fields. A permanent resource provider identifier is determined using the data elements in the data fields by the processing system. A determination is made to check that the verification value in the authorization request message matches the verification value that is provided to a token requestor by the processing system. An authorization response message is transmitted to a resource provider computer by the processing system).
US 20210312433 (involved in receiving a token request for a token by a token server computer from an application provider computer in a transaction. The token request comprises a token reference identifier. The token is retrieved using a stored mapping between the token reference identifier and the token by the token server computer. An account number is determined the token server computer based on the token. The token server computer provides the account number to another computer, which processes the transaction using the account number).
US 20180053189 (involved in receiving an authorization response message from an authorizing entity computer, by the server computer. The user location is incorporated into the authorization response message. The authorization response message including the user location is transmitted to a resource provider computer. The resource provider computer compares the user location to a resource provider location associated with the resource provider and determines whether to complete the transaction using the credential based on the comparison).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 February 20, 2026