DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on July 07, 2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a data collector that includes a spider manager and distributed spidering servers, the data collector configured to retrieve identity data records associated with an individual from a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases” in claim 1.
“an identity resolution engine including a validator and information associator, the identify resolution engine configured to analyze the retrieved identity data records using pattern recognition to determine whether different records correspond to the same individual and to merge matching records into a unified personal profile for that individual” in claim 1.
“a data storage subsystem comprising an identity database configured to store each unified personal profile and link multiple identifiers associated with the individual within the unified personal profile” in claim 1.
“an integration interface configured to provide access to the unified personal profile data to external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines, thereby enabling use of the unified personal profile in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications” in claim 1.
“wherein the identity resolution engine comprises a machine-learning model trained on identity data to recognize matching patterns among identity attributes, the machine learning model being configured to automatically predict a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual” in claim 3.
“wherein the identity resolution engine is configured to apply a heuristic matching algorithm that assigns weighted scores to a plurality of identity attributes in the identity data records and determines a match confidence based on the weighted scores to decide whether to merge the records into the unified personal profile” in claim 4.
“further comprising an analytics module configured to analyze data from a plurality of the unified personal profiles stored in the identity database using an artificial intelligence algorithm to generate aggregated market intelligence insights regarding public social behaviors and trends” in claim 6.
“wherein the identity database is configured to maintain, for each unified personal profile, a set of linked identity attributes selected from names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, or social media identifiers, thereby representing the individual as a single node in an identity that bridges data from the disparate public sources” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “a data collector that includes a spider manager and distributed spidering servers, the data collector configured to retrieve identity data records associated with an individual from a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “a data collector”, “identify data records”, and “a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “an identity resolution engine including a validator and information associator, the identify resolution engine configured to analyze the retrieved identity data records using pattern recognition to determine whether different records correspond to the same individual and to merge matching records into a unified personal profile for that individual” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “an identity resolution engine”, “the identify resolution engine configured to analyze the retrieved identity data records using pattern recognition”, and “merge matching records into a unified personal profile” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “a data storage subsystem comprising an identity database configured to store each unified personal profile and link multiple identifiers associated with the individual within the unified personal profile” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “a data storage subsystem” “an identity database”, “unified personal profile” and “link multiple identifiers associated with the individual within the unified personal profile” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “an integration interface configured to provide access to the unified personal profile data to external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines, thereby enabling use of the unified personal profile in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “an integration interface”, “unified personal profile data”, “to external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines”, and “enabling use of the unified personal profile in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “analyzing the identity data records by applying an identity resolution algorithm that evaluates similarities among identity attributes in the records to determine whether two or more of the records correspond to the same individual” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “identity data records”, and “by applying an identity resolution algorithm that evaluates similarities among identity attributes in the records to determine whether two or more of the records correspond to the same individual” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “merging, in response to determining that the records correspond to the same individual, the two or more matching identity data records into a unified personal profile for that individual” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “merging…the two or more matching identity data records into a unified personal profile for that individual” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “storing the unified personal profile in a data store as part of an identity that links together identity attributes associated with the individual” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “unified personal profile” and “as part of an identity that links together identity attributes associated with the individual” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “providing access to the unified personal profile via an electronic interface to an external system selected from a marketing technology platform or a search engine, thereby enabling the external system to utilize the unified personal profile for identity-based applications” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “unified personal profile”, “via an electronic interface to an external system selected from a marketing technology platform or a search engine”, and “thereby enabling the external system to utilize the unified personal profile for identity-based applications” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the identity resolution engine comprises a machine-learning model trained on identity data to recognize matching patterns among identity attributes, the machine learning model being configured to automatically predict a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual” in dependent claim 3 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “identity resolution engine comprises a machine-learning model trained on identity data to recognize matching patterns among identity attributes, the machine learning model being configured to automatically predict a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the identity resolution engine is configured to apply a heuristic matching algorithm that assigns weighted scores to a plurality of identity attributes in the identity data records and determines a match confidence based on the weighted scores to decide whether to merge the records into the unified personal profile” in dependent claim 4 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “identity resolution engine is configured to apply a heuristic matching algorithm that assigns weighted scores to a plurality of identity attributes in the identity data records and determines a match confidence based on the weighted scores to decide whether to merge the records into the unified personal profile” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of public data sources comprises at least one social media or social networking site, at least one professional or business directory, and one or more additional publicly accessible data sources containing identity-related information, such that the data collector aggregates identity data spanning personal, social, and professional domains for the individual” in dependent claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “wherein the plurality of public data sources comprises at least one social media or social networking site, at least one professional or business directory, and one or more additional publicly accessible data sources containing identity-related information, such that the data collector aggregates identity data spanning personal, social, and professional domains for the individual” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “further comprising an analytics module configured to analyze data from a plurality of the unified personal profiles stored in the identity database using an artificial intelligence algorithm to generate aggregated market intelligence insights regarding public social behaviors and trends” in dependent claim 6 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “an analytics module configured to analyze data from a plurality of the unified personal profiles stored in the identity database using an artificial intelligence algorithm to generate aggregated market intelligence insights regarding public social behaviors and trends” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the identity database is configured to maintain, for each unified personal profile, a set of linked identity attributes selected from names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, or social media identifiers, thereby representing the individual as a single node in an identity that bridges data from the disparate public sources” in dependent claim 7 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “identity database is configured to maintain, for each unified personal profile, a set of linked identity attributes selected from names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, or social media identifiers, thereby representing the individual as a single node in an identity that bridges data from the disparate public sources” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein analyzing the identity data records comprises using a machine learning-based pattern recognition model that has been trained on previously- linked identity record pairs to predict a likelihood that two identity data records belong to the same individual, and treating the two identity data records as a match when the predicted likelihood exceeds a predefined threshold” in dependent claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “analyzing the identity data records comprises using a machine learning-based pattern recognition model that has been trained on previously- linked identity record pairs to predict a likelihood that two identity data records belong to the same individual, and treating the two identity data records as a match when the predicted likelihood exceeds a predefined threshold” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein analyzing the identity data records comprises applying a set of heuristic matching rules that weight multiple identity attributes in each record and calculate a composite similarity score, the method further comprising determining that the given individual's records match when the composite similarity score satisfies a match criterion, and merging those records based on that determination” in dependent claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “analyzing the identity data records comprises applying a set of heuristic matching rules that weight multiple identity attributes in each record and calculate a composite similarity score, the method further comprising determining that the given individual's records match when the composite similarity score satisfies a match criterion, and merging those records based on that determination” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “further comprising aggregating a plurality of unified personal profiles and analyzing the aggregated profiles using an artificial intelligence algorithm to extract market intelligence insights about public social behavior, including identifying trends or patterns across the individuals' public social data, wherein the insights are provided to an external market intelligence or artificial intelligence data platform” in dependent claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “aggregating a plurality of unified personal profiles and analyzing the aggregated profiles using an artificial intelligence algorithm to extract market intelligence insights about public social behavior, including identifying trends or patterns across the individuals' public social data, wherein the insights are provided to an external market intelligence or artificial intelligence data platform” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the multiple public data sources from which identity data records are retrieved include a combination of social media networks, online professional profiles, public web directories, and other publicly available data sources, such that the retrieved identity data encompass diverse facets of the individual's public presence for more robust identity resolution” in dependent claim 11 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “wherein the multiple public data sources from which identity data records are retrieved include a combination of social media networks, online professional profiles, public web directories, and other publicly available data sources, such that the retrieved identity data encompass diverse facets of the individual's public presence for more robust identity resolution” are not described in the specification as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitation "the same individual”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites a system for indexing and disambiguating identity information available from public sources, however, it is not clear how any of the subsequent steps in the claim relates to indexing and/or disambiguating information.
Independent claim 2 recites a computer-implemented method for indexing public web data to create a unified identity profile, however, it is not clear how any of the subsequent steps in the claim relates to indexing public web data.
Dependent claims 3-11 inherit the same deficiencies of their base claims, therefore, they are also indefinite.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 2 respectively recite a system and a method, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“analyze the retrieved identity data records using pattern recognition to determine whether different records correspond to the same individual and to merge matching records into a unified personal profile for that individual”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze retrieved identity data records using pattern recognition to mentally or using a pen and paper determine whether different records correspond to a same individual, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper merge matching records into a unified personal profile for that individual.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 1, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“analyzing the identity data records by applying an identity resolution algorithm that evaluates similarities among identity attributes in the records to determine whether two or more of the records correspond to the same individual”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze identity data records by applying an identity resolution algorithm that evaluates similarities among identity attributes in the records to mentally or using a pen and paper determine whether two or more of the records correspond to the same individual.
“merging, in response to determining that the records correspond to the same individual, the two or more matching identity data records into a unified personal profile for that individual”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine that records correspond to a same individual merge two or more matching identity data records into a unified personal profile for that individual.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 1, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a data collector that includes a spider manager and distributed spidering servers, the data collector configured to retrieve identity data records associated with an individual from a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases”, which is a step of retrieving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“a data storage subsystem comprising an identity database configured to store each unified personal profile and link multiple identifiers associated with the individual within the unified personal profile”, which is a step of storing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“an integration interface configured to provide access to the unified personal profile data to external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines, thereby enabling use of the unified personal profile in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications”, which is a step of providing data for access or selection. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data selection and manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a system for indexing and disambiguating identity information available from public sources, comprising:”, “a data collector that includes a spider manager and distributed spidering servers, the data collector configured to retrieve”, “a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases”, “an identity resolution engine including a validator and information associator, the identify resolution engine configured to analyze”, “a data storage subsystem comprising an identity database configured to store”, “an integration interface configured to provide access”, external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines”, and “in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications” in the steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“retrieving, via one or more computing devices, identity data records for a given individual from multiple public data sources including social networking platforms and other publicly available identity data repositories”, which is a step of retrieving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“storing the unified personal profile in a data store as part of an identity that links together identity attributes associated with the individual”, which is a step of storing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“providing access to the unified personal profile via an electronic interface to an external system selected from a marketing technology platform or a search engine, thereby enabling the external system to utilize the unified personal profile for identity-based applications”, which is a step of providing data for access or selection. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data selection and manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a computer-implemented method of indexing public web data to create a unified identity profile, comprising:”, “via one or more computing devices”, “multiple public data sources including social networking platforms and other publicly available identity data repositories”, “a data store”, “via an electronic interface”, “to an external system selected from a marketing technology platform or a search engine”, and “for identity-based applications” in the steps in claim 2 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 2 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a data collector that includes a spider manager and distributed spidering servers, the data collector configured to retrieve identity data records associated with an individual from a plurality of disparate public data sources including social networking platforms and other identity-related databases”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“a data storage subsystem comprising an identity database configured to store each unified personal profile and link multiple identifiers associated with the individual within the unified personal profile”, which is a step of storing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“an integration interface configured to provide access to the unified personal profile data to external systems including marketing technology platforms or search engines, thereby enabling use of the unified personal profile in identity-based marketing, search, or identity applications”, which is a step of providing data for access or selection, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“retrieving, via one or more computing devices, identity data records for a given individual from multiple public data sources including social networking platforms and other publicly available identity data repositories”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“storing the unified personal profile in a data store as part of an identity that links together identity attributes associated with the individual”, which is a step of storing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“providing access to the unified personal profile via an electronic interface to an external system selected from a marketing technology platform or a search engine, thereby enabling the external system to utilize the unified personal profile for identity-based applications”, which is a step of providing data for access or selection, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the identity resolution engine comprises a machine-learning model trained on identity data to recognize matching patterns among identity attributes, the machine learning model being configured to automatically predict a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper recognize matching patterns among identity attributes and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper automatically predict a match between identity data records that belong to a same individual, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the identity resolution engine comprises a machine-learning model trained on identity data to recognize” and “the machine learning model being configured to automatically predict” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the identity resolution engine is configured to apply a heuristic matching algorithm that assigns weighted scores to a plurality of identity attributes in the identity data records and determines a match confidence based on the weighted scores to decide whether to merge the records into the unified personal profile”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper apply a heuristic matching algorithm that assigns weighted scores to a plurality of identity attributes in identity data records and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a match confidence based on the weighted scores to decide whether to merge the records into a unified personal profile, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the identity resolution engine is configured to apply” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the plurality of public data sources comprises at least one social media or social networking site, at least one professional or business directory, and one or more additional publicly accessible data sources containing identity-related information, such that the data collector aggregates identity data spanning personal, social, and professional domains for the individual”, which is a step of retrieving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional limitations, such as:
“further comprising an analytics module configured to analyze data from a plurality of the unified personal profiles stored in the identity database using an artificial intelligence algorithm to generate aggregated market intelligence insights regarding public social behaviors and trends”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze data from a plurality of the unified personal profiles stored in an identity database to generate aggregated market intelligence insights regarding public social behaviors and trends, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “using an artificial intelligence algorithm” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the identity database is configured to maintain, for each unified personal profile, a set of linked identity attributes selected from names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, or social media identifiers, thereby representing the individual as a single node in an identity that bridges data from the disparate public sources”, which is a step of storing data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein analyzing the identity data records comprises using a machine learning-based pattern recognition model that has been trained on previously-linked identity record pairs to predict a likelihood that two identity data records belong to the same individual, and treating the two identity data records as a match when the predicted likelihood exceeds a predefined threshold”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze identity data records using pattern recognition to mentally or using a pen and paper predict a likelihood that two identity data records belong to a same individual, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper treat the two identity data records as a match when the predicted likelihood exceeds a predefined threshold, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “using a machine learning-based pattern recognition model that has been trained on previously-linked identity record pairs to predict” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein analyzing the identity data records comprises applying a set of heuristic matching rules that weight multiple identity attributes in each record and calculate a composite similarity score, the method further comprising determining that the given individual's records match when the composite similarity score satisfies a match criterion, and merging those records based on that determination”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze identity data records by mentally or using a pen and paper applying a set of heuristic matching rules that weight multiple identity attributes in each record to calculate a composite similarity score, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine that a given individual's records match when the composite similarity score satisfies a match criterion, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper merge records based on that determination, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional limitations, such as:
“further comprising aggregating a plurality of unified personal profiles and analyzing the aggregated profiles using an artificial intelligence algorithm to extract market intelligence insights about public social behavior, including identifying trends or patterns across the individuals' public social data”,
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper aggregate a plurality of unified personal profiles and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze the aggregated profiles to extract market intelligence insights about public social behavior, including identifying trends or patterns across a individuals' public social data, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“wherein the insights are provided to an external market intelligence or artificial intelligence data platform”, which is a step of providing or sending data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
The additional elements “using an artificial intelligence algorithm” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the multiple public data sources from which identity data records are retrieved include a combination of social media networks, online professional profiles, public web directories, and other publicly available data sources, such that the retrieved identity data encompass diverse facets of the individual's public presence for more robust identity resolution”, which is a step of retrieving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 3-11 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Vanasco (US Pub 2010/0274815).
With respect to claim 1, Vanasco discloses a sys