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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-20 recite a method and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ managing an ontology of object types, including a record type (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically evaluate objects and generate / manage ontology);
▪ maintaining a target list of records as objects of the record type, comprising creating a semantic representation including one or more embeddings for each record of the target list of records, the target list of records representing real-life entities (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically determine embeddings for each record based on semantics and generate a list);
▪ maintaining a source list of records as objects of the record type (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can determine a list of data based on type indication);
▪ detecting that a new record is added to the source list of records (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can evaluate new records);
▪ comparing the new record with one or more records in the target list of records based on the one or more semantic representations for the one or more records to obtain a set of matching records from the one or more records (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally compare records);
▪ assigning the new record to a cluster associated with a specific record of the set of matching records; identifying a representative of the cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can apply mathematical calculations to determined matching data and identify representation of the cluster);
▪ outputting the representative as a result of resolving the new record to an entity (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can generate output based on resolved records).
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 13 and 20, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ one or more processors, at least one memory (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using a processor to apply the exception);
▪ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Claim 20)(Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning model to classify document amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claims 1, 13 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory” and claim 20 recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” However, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 13 and 20 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 13 and 20, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1, 13 and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1, 13 and 20 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-19 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psota et al. (US 2019/0171655) in view of the applicant’s admitted prior art Chen et al. (US 10,331,681)(see IDS 05/15/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Psota teaches a method of entity resolution based on ontology structures, comprising:
managing an ontology of object types, including a record type ([0089], [0107]-[0108])(see NOTE);
maintaining a target list of records as objects of the record type, comprising creating a semantic representation ([0024], [0105]-[0106]) including one or more embeddings for each record of the target list of records ([0072], [0082]-[0083], [0106] “creating word vector embeddings for the records”), the target list of records representing real-life entities ([0034]-[0035], [0037]);
maintaining a source list of records as objects of the record type ([0035] “a definitive list … may be generated”, [0048], [0079]);
detecting that a new record is added to the source list of records ([0010], [0068] “creating a new name or primary key to append to table if a previously stored match cannot be found”, [0090], [0100]);
comparing the new record with one or more records in the target list of records based on the one or more semantic representations for the one or more records to obtain a set of matching records from the one or more records ([0069], [0101]-[0102]);
assigning the new record to a cluster associated with a specific record of the set of matching records ([0093], [0101]);
identifying a representative of the cluster ([0098]);
outputting the representative as a result of resolving the new record to an entity ([0102] “a member cluster may be associated with that entity, according to the best match criteria, thereby providing the user with the expected entity naming convention and accordingly data that is useful to that user”), wherein the method is performed by one or more processors ([0110]).
Psota does not explicitly teach, however Chen discloses identifying a representative of the cluster (C8L19-20, C9L1-10, 40-42); outputting the representative as a result of resolving the new record to an entity (C8L30-32, C11L20-27).
NOTE Psota teaches a persistent data structure that maintains a relationships and associations between entities in a graph structure, as shown in F1A-C, and bootstrapping ontologies in the data set. Such persistent storage with link relationships, linked members, linked entities and bootstrapped ontologies with structured data types is analogous to the claims “ontology of object types.”
Still, Chen discloses ontology of object types (C5L55-67, C6L13-14, C7L1-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota to include a representative of the cluster as disclosed by Chen. Doing so would help efficiently evaluating cluster sets for a search result of a query that enables the system to provide optimal clustered results for the query (Chen C15L13-16).
Regarding claim 13, Psota teaches a system for entity resolution based on ontology structures, comprising: a memory; one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to perform: managing an ontology of object types, including a record type; maintaining a target list of records as objects of the record type, comprising creating a semantic representation including one or more embeddings for each record of the target list of records, the target list of records representing real-life entities; maintaining a source list of records as objects of the record type; detecting that a new record is added to the source list of records; comparing the new record with one or more records in the target list of records based on the one or more semantic representations for the one or more records to obtain a set of matching records from the one or more records; assigning the new record to a cluster associated with a specific record of the set of matching records; identifying a representative of the cluster; outputting the representative as a result of resolving the new record to an entity.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Psota as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising cleaning up the new record in terms of punctuation, casing, spacing, stemming, or format standardization (Psota [0013], [0059], [0074], [0106]).
Regarding claim 4, Psota as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising classifying the new record into one or more blocks (Psota [0047] “divide a … record up into logical portions”) defined by a token (Psota [0073]) of the new record or a portion thereof, each record of the one or more records in the target list of records being classified into at least a block of the one or more blocks (Psota [0049] “dividing the group of objects into subsets … allows for divisions of the data into selected sub-divisions-for example processing certain members of the group of objects for a specific country, port, etc.”).
NOTE claim 4 is likewise disclosed by the applicant’s admitted prior art Azzalini et al. “Blocking Techniques for Entity Linkage: A Semantics-Based Approach” and PAPADAKIS et al. “A Survey of Blocking and Filtering Techniques for Entity Resolution”(see IDS 05/09/2025).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system, the comparing comprising, for the new record having a first list of fields and a certain record of the one or more records having a second list of fields (Psota [0069], [0072]):
identifying a plurality of pairs (Psota [0081]-[0082]), each pair including a first field from the first list of fields and a second field from the second list of fields ([0051]);
evaluating the two fields in each pair of the plurality of pairs to obtain a field comparison score (Psota [0051], [0054], [0101]-[0102]);
aggregating the plurality of field comparison scores to obtain a record comparison score, each record of the set of matching records having a record comparison score that satisfies a given condition (Psota [0085], [0087], [0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Psota as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a user confirmation of a match involving a matching record of the set of matching records (Chen C8L6-58); improving the creating or the comparing for a future record based on the user confirmation (Chen C25L65-67).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system, the specific record being associated with a largest cluster or a highest record comparison score among the set of matching records (Psota F4:410-42, [0053], [0092], [0095]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising: receiving a user input to reassign the new record to a second cluster; identifying a first new representative of the cluster and a second new representative of the second cluster based on the reassigning; improving the creating or the comparing for a future record based on the user input (Chen C14L4-30, 50-67, C20L49-67, C25L65-67, F3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Psota as modified teaches the method of claim 1, the ontology implementing versioning for the object types, further comprising saving the specific record or the representative of the cluster as a new version of new record (Psota [0036] “determining not only a current corporate hierarchy, but a past corporate hierarchy as well”, “when this change occurs and/or is effective may indicate a change in common entity identifier, or at least a corporate owner of a shipment described in a transaction record”, [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Psota teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing one or more sequences of instructions which when executed cause one or more processors to perform: maintaining a target list of records as objects of the record type, comprising creating a semantic representation including one or more embeddings for each record of the target list of records, the target list of records representing real-life entities; maintaining a source list of records as objects of the record type; detecting that a new record is added to the source list of records; comparing the new record with one or more records in the target list of records based on the one or more semantic representations for the one or more records to obtain a set of matching records from the one or more records; assigning the new record to a cluster associated with a specific record of the set of matching records; identifying a representative of the cluster; outputting the representative as a result of resolving the new record to an entity.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2, 5-6, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psota as modified and in further view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2022/0342901).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system, creating a semantic representation for a particular record of the target list of records comprising executing a transformation
Psota does not explicitly teach, however Aggarwal discloses executing a transformer on the particular record, the transformer being trained on a corpus selected based on the target list of records ([0034]-[0035], [0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota to include a transformer as disclosed by Aggarwal. Doing so provides appropriate pairings of the detected semantic types without significant manual effort (Aggarwal [0002], [0016]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system as discloses above, Aggarwal additionally further discloses the comparing comprising, for the new record having a first list of fields and a certain record of the one or more records having a second list of fields:
identifying a plurality of pairs, each pair including a first field from the first list of fields and a second field from the second list of fields ([0035], [0055]); evaluating the two fields in each pair of the plurality of pairs to obtain a field comparison score ( [0051], [0054], [0101]-[0102]); aggregating the plurality of field comparison scores to obtain a record comparison score, each record of the set of matching records having a record comparison score that satisfies a given condition ([0035], [0055], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Psota as modified teaches the method and the system further comprising: creating a new semantic representation including one or more embeddings for the new record (Psota [0055] “create new knowledge of proper similarity comparisons relative to other ones of the available difference operations and/or similarity operations”), the evaluating comprising assessing two sets of embeddings respectively corresponding to the two fields (Aggarwal [0014] “automatically detecting semantic types of the fields and the columns of the input data”, “semantic types are encoded in vector representations of the data elements and vector representations of the fields”, [0017], [0019] “vector representation, an element probability may be generated for each possible pairing of a data element and a cluster”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota to include a transformer filed comparisons as disclosed by Aggarwal. Doing so provides appropriate pairings of the detected semantic types without significant manual effort (Aggarwal [0002], [0016]).
Claims 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psota as modified and in further view of Hattori et al. (US 20250036883).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Psota as modified does not explicitly teach, however Hattori discloses the method and the system, the identifying comprising obtaining a summary of records in the cluster using a large language model ([0048], [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota as modified to include a l a summary of records in the cluster using a large language model as disclosed by Hattori. Doing so provides a comprehensible explanation of the clusters (Hattori [0048]).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psota as modified and in further view of McGrew et al. (US 8554719).
Regarding claim 11, Psota as modified does not explicitly teach, however McGrew discloses the ontology of object types including a method type, further comprising:
maintaining a list of methods for the comparing as objects of the method type; delivering a graphical user interface (GUI), which allows issuing a command to add a new method or replace a first method by a second method in the comparing using only one or more graphical operations (C6L30-32, 37-50, C10L40-54, C12L16-20, C14L21-46, 63-67 – C15L1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota as modified to include a list of methods for the comparing objects as disclosed by McGrew. Doing so would handles various organizations of information successfully and efficiently, allowing users to spend less time conforming to strict data input methodologies and more time focusing on an investigation or the use of the data (McGrew C7L33-36).
Claim 12 is/are additionally or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psota as modified and in further view of Clark et al. (US 20090196179).
Regarding claim 12, Psota as modified teaches the methos as discloses above, Clark additionally further discloses, the ontology implementing versioning for the object types, further comprising saving the specific record or the representative of the cluster as a new version of new record ([0042], [0080], [0091]-[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Psota as modified to include versioning for the object as disclosed by Clark. Doing so would provide another way to accomplish the objective of conveying qualitative information about transformations of objects (Clark C7L33-36[0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights