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 .
Response to Amendment
The IDS received on 09/09/2025 has been considered.
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 09/09/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 18-20 have been amended; claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 remain unchanged; claims 5 and 12 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 04/26/2023
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the amended claims and states that the claims do not recite an abstract concept. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The claims do indeed recite an abstract concept involving identifying and associating devices with patients and sharing the associated information. Applicant comments about how there are multiple disparate sources of data but the claims first and foremost do not discuss this.
Applicant further argues with respect to Example 42 and states that the present claims are similar to those in Example 42. Applicant states there are specific improvements over prior art systems by associating particular data with a specific device. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. An improvement involving associating data is not necessarily a technical improvement, it is moreover seen as an improvement to a generic abstract idea of data management for a patient.
Lastly, Applicant states that the analysis should end at the second prong of the Step 2A analysis. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The claims recite an abstract idea with additional elements which integrate with the abstract idea in an “apply it” manner. Accordingly, the generic computing components listed in Step 2A, Prong Two do not lead towards providing a practical application.
35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections:
Applicant made arguments directed towards the newly amended claim limitations. These arguments are deemed moot in view of the updated 103 rejections which now address these limitations with additional art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are drawn to a method, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are drawn to a system, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
1) extracting a set of medical device data from a) a first database (if hardware), wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema;
2) extracting a set of patient-level medical data from b) a second database (if hardware), wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of medical device identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema;
3) executing, by c) a processing device, a token generation algorithm to generate a first set of tokens based on the set of medical device data, wherein each token of the first set of tokens represents a particular medical device and encrypted personal identifiable information of a patient associated with the particular medical device transformed into a third schema;
4) executing the token generation algorithm to generate a second set of tokens based on the set of patient-level medical data, wherein each token of the second set of tokens represents a particular medical record comprising personal identifiable information of a particular patient and a set of medical data associated with the particular patient transformed into the third schema;
5) generating a set of similarity scores based on comparisons of each token of the first set of tokens and each token of the second set of tokens, wherein the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are in the third schema;
6) identifying a subset of matching tokens based on the set of similarity scores;
7) generating a dataset comprising a set of merged records corresponding to the subset of matching tokens, wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises data linking the particular medical device from the medical device data to the set of medical data associated with the particular patient from the set of patient-level medical data; and
8) enabling access to the set of merged records of the dataset to query the dataset to identify at least a portion of the set of medical data associated with the particular patient linked to the particular medical device for use in generating analytics.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) extracting a set of medical device data from a first database (if mental memory), wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema, 2) extracting a set of patient-level medical data from a second database (if mental memory), wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of medical device identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema, 3) executing a token generation algorithm to generate a first set of tokens based on the set of medical device data, wherein each token of the first set of tokens represents a particular medical device and encrypted personal identifiable information of a patient associated with the particular medical device transformed into a third schema, 4) executing the token generation algorithm to generate a second set of tokens based on the set of patient-level medical data, wherein each token of the second set of tokens represents a particular medical record comprising personal identifiable information of a particular patient and a set of medical data associated with the particular patient transformed into the third schema, 5) generating a set of similarity scores based on comparisons of each token of the first set of tokens and each token of the second set of tokens, wherein the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are in the third schema, 6) identifying a subset of matching tokens based on the set of similarity scores, 7) generating a dataset comprising a set of merged records corresponding to the subset of matching tokens, wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises data linking the particular medical device from the medical device data to the set of medical data associated with the particular patient from the set of patient-level medical data, and 8) enabling access to the set of merged records of the dataset to query the dataset to identify at least a portion of the set of medical data associated with the particular patient linked to the particular medical device for use in generating analytics. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to identify and associate devices with patients and share the associated information. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2, 9, and 16 add the additional step of “generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens” and claims 3, 10, and 17 add the additional step of “in response to determining that a condition is satisfied based on the similarity score, including the first token and the second token in the subset of matching tokens”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, and 18-20 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a first database (if hardware), b) a second database (if hardware), c) a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to execute the instructions, and d) a memory to store instructions (from claim 8) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0051] where there is a general-purpose processor, paragraph [0059] where there are general-purpose systems, and paragraph [0052] where there are generic memories, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
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 elements of using a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates a dataset and enables access to records utilizing a) a first database, b) a second database, c) a processing device, and d) a memory, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,004,548 to Austin et al. in view of U.S. 2021/0304881 to White et al. and further in view of U.S. 2022/0245270 to De Araujo et al.
As per claim 1, Austin et al. teaches a method comprising:
--executing, by a processing device, a token generation algorithm to generate a first set of tokens based on the set of medical device data, (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is an addition of a unique person token to each record. A token execution algorithm is being generated here to generate token based on data here) wherein each token of the first set of tokens represents a patient data and encrypted personal identifiable information of a patient associated with the particular medical device transformed into a third schema; (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is an addition of a unique encrypted person token to each record which contains patient data)
--executing the token generation algorithm to generate a second set of tokens based on the set of patient-level medical data, (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is an addition of a unique person token to each record. A token execution algorithm is being generated here to generate token based on data here) wherein each token of the second set of tokens represents a particular medical record comprising personal identifiable information of a particular patient and a set of medical data associated with the particular patient transformed into the third schema; (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is a set of tokens which represents patient records and the transformed/de-identified data)
--generating a set of similarity scores based on comparisons of each token of the first set of tokens and each token of the second set of tokens, wherein the first set of tokens and the second set of tokens are in the third schema; (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is generation of similarity scores which are defined by the outcome of the matching process. For example, a match of tokens indicates that the tokens have a 100% match (a score) whereas a non-match is 0% (another score))
--identifying a subset of matching tokens based on the set of similarity scores; (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is identification using the scores and matching and merging of this data)
--generating a dataset comprising a set of merged records corresponding to the subset of matching tokens, (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is identification using the scores and matching and merging of this data) wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises data linking the patient data from the medical device data to the set of medical data associated with the particular patient from the set of patient-level medical data; (see: column 2, lines 1-20 where there is identification using the scores and matching and merging of this data) and
--enabling access to the set of merged records of the dataset to query the dataset to identify at least a portion of the set of medical data associated with the particular patient linked to the patient data for use in generating analytics (see: column 2, lines 38-49 where there is delivery of merged de-identified healthcare data sets. Access is being enabled here to the set of merged records. Also see: column 6, lines 9-31 where a user can potentially perform analysis on the merged dataset).
Austin et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --extracting a set of medical device data from a first database, wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema;
2) --extracting a set of patient-level medical data from a second database, wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of patient data identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema; and
3) --a patient data as a particular medical device.
White et al. teaches:
3) --a patient data as a particular medical device (see: paragraph [0208] where there is a wearable device with patient data and that is associated with that patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) a particular medical device as taught by White et al. for the patient data as disclosed by Austin et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Austin et al. already teaches of using information related to a patient therefore replacing that data for other data of the patient would produce predictable results of using a patient’s data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
De Araujo et al. teaches:
1) --extracting a set of medical device data from a first database, wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema; (see: paragraphs [0041] and [0052] where there is data extraction from various places and in various formats. The data here being related to medical devices was taught in the previous references) and
2) --extracting a set of patient-level medical data from a second database, wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of patient data identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema (see: paragraphs [0041] and [0052] where there is data extraction from various places and in various formats. The first format can be different than the second format. The data here being related to medical devices was taught in the previous references).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) extract a set of medical device data from a first database, wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first set of medical device identifiers in a first schema and 2) extract a set of patient-level medical data from a second database, wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises personal identifiable information of a set of patients and a second set of patient data identifiers in a second schema that is different from the first schema as taught by De Araujo et al. in the method as taught by Austin et al. and White et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of accounting for the various systems that house the data (see: paragraph [0041] of De Araujo et al.).
As per claim 4, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. White et al. further teaches wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first medical device identifier identifying a first medical device; (see: FIG. 2 where there is a first identifier in the form of 204) and wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises a second medical device identifier identifying the first medical device (see: FIG. 2 where there is a second identifier in the form of 206).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. White et al. further teaches wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises first information identifying the particular medical device and second information identifying a particular patient associated with the particular medical device (see: paragraph [0065] where the device information (first information) is being integrated into the record. Also see: paragraph [0137] where patient identification information (second information) is being shared as being part of a record).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. White et al. further teaches wherein the at least the portion of the set of medical data is extracted from the second set of tokens (see: paragraph [0169] where the identifiers are being used to extract data from different case files and this extracted data is then merged together. The tokens (first and second identifiers) here used to extract portions of data and are then merged together).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, claim 8 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination. White et al. further teaches a system comprising:
--a memory to store instructions; (see: paragraph [0004] where there is a memory with instructions) and
--a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to execute the instructions (see: paragraph [0004] where there is a processing device with instructions) to perform operations.
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 8, see discussion of claim 8. White et al. further teaches wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first medical device identifier identifying a first medical device; (see: FIG. 2 where there is a first identifier in the form of 204) and wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises a second medical device identifier identifying the first medical device (see: FIG. 2 where there is a second identifier in the form of 206).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 8, see discussion of claim 8. White et al. further teaches wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises first information identifying the particular medical device and second information identifying a particular patient associated with the particular medical device (see: paragraph [0065] where the device information (first information) is being integrated into the record. Also see: paragraph [0137] where patient identification information (second information) is being shared as being part of a record).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 8, see discussion of claim 8. White et al. further teaches wherein the at least the portion of the set of medical data is extracted from the second set of tokens (see: paragraph [0169] where the identifiers are being used to extract data from different case files and this extracted data is then merged together. The tokens (first and second identifiers) here used to extract portions of data and are then merged together).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, claim 8 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination. White et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions that, if executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations (see: paragraph [0028] where there is such a medium).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the medium of claim 15, see discussion of claim 15. White et al. further teaches wherein the set of medical device data comprises a first medical device identifier identifying a first medical device; (see: FIG. 2 where there is a first identifier in the form of 204) and wherein the set of patient-level medical data comprises a second medical device identifier identifying the first medical device (see: FIG. 2 where there is a second identifier in the form of 206).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 15, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the medium of claim 15, see discussion of claim 15. White et al. further teaches wherein each merged record of the set of merged records comprises first information identifying the particular medical device (see: FIG. 2 where there is a first information in the form of 204) and second information identifying a particular patient associated with the particular medical device (see: FIG. 2 where there is a second information in the form of 206).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 15, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the medium of claim 15, see discussion of claim 15. White et al. further teaches wherein the at least the portion of the set of medical data is extracted from the second set of tokens (see: paragraph [0169] where the identifiers are being used to extract data from different case files and this extracted data is then merged together. The tokens (first and second identifiers) here used to extract portions of data and are then merged together).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 15, and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,004,548 to Austin et al. in view of U.S. 2021/0304881 to White et al. and further in view of U.S. 2022/0245270 to De Araujo et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,198 to Tang et al.
As per claim 2, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens.
Tang et al. teaches:
--generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens (see: column 2, lines 33-56 where there is generation of a similarity score based on comparing information. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to generate a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens as taught by Tang et al. in the method as taught by Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing data security for private information (see: column 1, lines 52-56 of Tang et al.).
As per claim 3, Austin et al., White et al., De Araujo et al., and Tang et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Tang et al. further teaches in response to determining that a condition is satisfied based on the similarity score, including the first token and the second token in the subset of matching tokens (see: FIG. 6 where in response to a determination that the similarity score is above a threshold then information is being shared. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference. This information is being included and provided to the device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 8, see discussion of claim 8. The combination may not further, specifically teach the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens.
Tang et al. teaches:
--the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens (see: column 2, lines 33-56 where there is generation of a similarity score based on comparing information. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens as taught by Tang et al. in the system as taught by Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing data security for private information (see: column 1, lines 52-56 of Tang et al.).
As per claim 10, Austin et al., White et al., De Araujo et al., and Tang et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. Tang et al. further teaches the operations further comprising in response to determining that a condition is satisfied based on the similarity score, including the first token and the second token in the subset of matching tokens (see: FIG. 6 where in response to a determination that the similarity score is above a threshold then information is being shared. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference. This information is being included and provided to the device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination teaches the medium of claim 15, see discussion of claim 15. The combination may not further, specifically teach the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens.
Tang et al. teaches:
--the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens (see: column 2, lines 33-56 where there is generation of a similarity score based on comparing information. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the operations further comprising generating a similarity score based on a comparison of a first token of the first set of tokens and a second token of the second set of tokens as taught by Tang et al. in the medium as taught by Austin et al., White et al., and De Araujo et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing data security for private information (see: column 1, lines 52-56 of Tang et al.).
As per claim 17, Austin et al., White et al., De Araujo et al., and Tang et al. in combination teaches the medium of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Tang et al. further teaches the operations further comprising in response to determining that a condition is satisfied based on the similarity score, including the first token and the second token in the subset of matching tokens (see: FIG. 6 where in response to a determination that the similarity score is above a threshold then information is being shared. The information being related to first and second tokens was already taught in the White et al. reference. This information is being included and provided to the device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights