Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This action in in response to amendment filed on 3/18/26.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in views of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant indicated Marchetti does not teach the amended features, specifically, “identifying, from the database, the locator comprising geographic location”. In response to applicant’s argument, Marchetti, in Col 18 lines 54-58, discloses one or more databases can be used to analyze a distribution of transactions and geographic locations associated with the transactions.
Updated rejection is provided.
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 of this title, 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, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti in view of Marchetti et al. US Patent Number 11,119,630, hereinafter Marchetti, in view of Jain, US Patent Publication Number 2025/0156573, hereinafter Jain.
Referring to claim 1, Marchetti discloses a computer-implemented method (abstract, Col 1 lines 16-18) comprising:
receiving, by a processor (figure 10, processor 1004), a request (user input 102) for a risk indicator (risk assessment result (approval/reject) in indicator 919) associated with a target entity (name of the client)(Col 7 lines 20-22, Col 21 lines 32-37, step 901 client input is received for risk assessment evaluation), wherein the target entity (name of the client) is associated with an identifier (identification number)(Col 7 lines 51-58, The user input can include a name of the client, government issued-identification numbers (such as a driver's license number, social security number, military ID number, national ID number, passport number, tax ID number, business entity ID number, etc.);
retrieving, by the processor from a database (databases 103), a record associated with the target entity (name of the client) based on the identifier (identification number), wherein the record comprises a locator (Col 8 lines 15-62, and figure 2, the record could be retrieved from different commercial databases 103 and internet 105; the accessed/retrieved record must be associating and comprising locator (context, Col 8 lines 1-4, user input 102 can also indicate a context for the client. The context can also affect the types of databases 103 used; the locator could also be the geographic data associated with the target entity, Col 17 lines 58-66, Col 18 line 54- Col 19 line 4, data could be geographic locations associated with transaction of the clients) and identity data (ex. Small Co.) in order to present the searched entity on display 205) and identity data (Col 8 lines 63-Col 9 line 18)(Col 8 line 15-Col 9 line 18, record associated with the client from databases 103 are accessed based on the name of client (ex. John Doe/ Small Co.));
identifying, by the processor and from the record (database), the locator (geographic data) and the identity data (client identity), the locator indicative of a geographic location (Col 17 lines 58-66, Col 18 line 54- Col 19 line 4, Data for analyzing the client's transaction with entities in unusual regions. One or more databases can be used to analyze a distribution of transactions and geographic locations associated with the transactions);
identifying the locator and the identity data, querying (Col 18 lines 54-55, analyzing the client's transaction with entities in unusual regions) by the processor (Col 27 lines 46-52, Computer system 1000 can send messages and receive data), a first external database (internet) associated with the geographic location (Col 18 line 55-58, One or more databases can be used to analyze a distribution of transactions and geographic locations associated with the client/locator transactions) of the locator based on the identity data (client) to retrieve one or more records comprising first event data and entity identity data (Col 8 lines 53-62, search for the client can be performed on the internet; Col 8 line 63 -Col 9 line 17, transactions and client/user are viewed as event data and identity data; Col 17 lines 58-66, Col 18 line 54- Col 19 line 4);
determining, by the processor, that an entity associated with the entity identity data is the target entity by comparing the entity identity data and the identity data associated with the target entity (Col 21 lines 42-51, Col 8 line 15- Col 9 line 18, figure 9 step 903, searching/accessing/retrieving record for the client based on the client input requires comparing and verifying the names of the client/user in order to provide the matching record back to the system);
determining, by the processor, the risk indicator (risk assessment result ex. approve/reject) by applying the event data to an algorithm (AI evaluation model 107) based on the determination that the entity is the target entity (Col 15 lines 37, example is given to show the risk factor/event data are showing matching identity and location information; The user interface 400 can show one or more tables or visualizations of the addresses, phone numbers, or identifiers associated with the client and, for each entity having a phone number, address, or identifier that matches the client); and
transmitting, by the processor to a remote computing device (remote computer device), a responsive message (notification) comprising at least the risk indicator (approve/reject) to control access of the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments (products or services such as a sale, transaction, service, or relationship could be granted or terminated)(step 919, Col 22 lines 52-61, Col 9 lines 52-59, approval or rejection of a sale, transaction, service, or relationship, could be transmitted via a notification to an individual or computer device).
Marchetti does not explicitly teach subsequent to identifying the request, querying via an application programming interface.
Jain discloses subsequent to identifying the request, querying via an application programming interface ([0145], the user device 910 could transmit a query to the server 920 related to the information… generating an API call, database query, or other programmatic action between programs or other aspects of the server 920).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the feature of API querying subsequent to request of Jain into Marchetti because Marchetti disclose querying remote databases, and Jain suggests the use of API call subsequent to the request.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti to standardize database queries and responses, facilitating consistent and reusable data access across the system and enhancing security and preventing direct exposure of underlying data structures..
Referring to claim 4, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the processor, a report comprising the risk indicator and the event data (Col 9 line 66-Col 10 line 6, if the risk assessment indicates the client is high risk, an interactive user interface/report comprising risk indicator is generated (figures 2-8) ; and including, by the processor, the report in the responsive message such that information in the report is used to control access of the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments (figure 9 step 907-919, Col 21 line 60- Col 22 line 61, report presented for analyst will be assessed to either approve or reject client).
Referring to claim 6, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the event data in the one or more records retrieved from the first external database is first event data, and wherein the method further comprises: identifying, by the processor, a second external database associated with the geographic location of the locator (Col 18 line 54- Col 19 line 4, retrieved/identified geographic location for the client); querying, by the processor via an application programming interface, the second external database based on the identity data to retrieve one or more records comprising second event data and second entity identity data; determining, by the processor, that a second entity associated with the second entity identity data is the target entity by comparing the second entity identity data and the identity data associated with the target entity; and determining, by the processor, the risk indicator based at least in part on the second event data (the limitation is similar to the limitation in claim 1, except claim is reciting the first external database, and claim 6 is reciting a second external database, Marchetti in Col 8 lines 1-62 discloses multiple databases 103 are being accessed to collect data for risk assessment, and specifically in Col 8 lines 15-62 shows multiple external databases examples such as internet, court databases, criminal history databases, government databases, public record databases, employment databases, news databases, and other archives; Col 18 lines 55-58 shows the database could also be a database contains geographic location data).
Referring to claim 9, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the processor, one or more databases associated with the geographic location of the locator (Col 18 lines 55-58, database associated with geographic location for the client), wherein the one or more databases comprises the first external database (Col 8 lines 1-62, user input 102 can also indicate a context for the client, where the context can also affect the types of databases 103 used, and the database comprising multiple external databases; Col 18 lines 55-58 shows the database could also be a database contains geographic location data).
Referring to claims 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, the claims encompass the same/similar scope of the invention as that of the claims 1 and 4. Therefore, claims 11, 14, 16, 17, 20 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1 and 4. Furthermore claim 17 recite a second responsive message comprising at least the risk indicator, Marchetti in figure 1 and figure 9, discloses the first responsive message could wither be the approved message 127 or the message from 107 going into 113 for further analysis. Marchetti discloses the further analysis feature (figure 9 step 911, figure 1 step 121) discloses in claim 17 to provide the second responsive message (step 919) after the analyst evaluation (step 121 in figure 1 and step 911 in figure 9).
Claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti in view of Jain, and in further view of Sun et al., CN-113255322-A, hereinafter Sun.
Referring to claims 2, 7, and 18, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the invention as described in claims 1, 11 and 17, Marchetti does not disclose determining a confidence level associated with a degree of matching between the entity identity data and the identity data associated with the target entity; and determining that the confidence level is greater than a confidence threshold.
Sun discloses determining a confidence level associated with a degree of matching between the entity identity data and the identity data associated with the target entity ([0064], calculate the confidence degree between the key word and the standard
character element identified by the entity calculating in the process of matching the standard character elements in each keyword and role element database); and determining that the confidence level is greater than a confidence threshold ([0064], the confidence level can represent the matching degree; if the confidence level is greater than the preset threshold value, determining the matching is successful).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate concept of determining a confidence level associated with a degree of matching between the entity identity data and the identity data associated with the target entity of Sun into Marchetti because Marchetti discloses a risk assessment system to perform background check of an entity by evaluating data collected from database, and Sun suggests a way to determine the accuracy of the collected data by using the determined confidence degree and confidence level with a preset confidence threshold (Sun, [0064]).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti to enhance the data accuracy by the determined confidence degree.
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the invention as described in claims 1, 11 and 17, Marchetti discloses querying for the first external database by mapping the identity data (Col 7 line 20-24, searching databases for the client based on client identity). Marchetti does not specifically teach mapping the identity data to one more field of the database.
Sun discloses mapping the identity data to one or more field of the database ([0060], entity matching in the matched field of the database).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate database field matching for the entity of Sun in Marchetti, because both Marchetti and Sun discloses searching data for specific entity by querying database and Sun specifically teaches the query is done my mapping matching field for the entity in the database.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti to allow field structured database to be utilized for data gathering by matching entity with field in the database as suggested which allow a wider range of database to be used in Marchetti’s system.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti in view of Jain, and in further view of Shi et al., CN-110798353-A, hereinafter Shi.
Referring to claims 3, 13, and 19, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the invention as described in claims 1, 11 and 17, Marchetti discloses wherein determining the risk indicator comprises: extracting, by the processor, text data from the event data (news articles, political articles, popularly viewed posts); parsing, by the processor, the text data to identify at least one keyword (text data must be extract and parse in order for the keyword search to be performed)( (Col 8 lines 53-62, search for and determine the context of an internet article that the client is found in, such as whether the client is found in news articles, political articles, popularly viewed posts, near keywords indicating a positive, negative, or controversial context, etc.); and determining a risk level, wherein the level of risk is used at least in part in determining the risk indicator (Col 8 lines 57-62, keywords indicating a positive, negative, or controversial context, etc., Col 9 Col 21 lines 42-65, data collected such as keywords indicating a positive, negative, or controversial context are used as risk factor to be evaluated/mapped to provide risk assessment).
Marchetti does not explicitly teach mapping the at least one keyword to a level of risk in a mapping table to determine the risk level.
Shi discloses a risk evaluating system that uses the risk keyword mapping data list/table to determined the risk level ([0029][0030] use of risk keyword mapping data list/table for risk evaluation).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the risk keyword mapping data list/table of Shi into Marchetti in view of Jain because Marchetti discloses a system to evaluate risk level and Shi suggests a use of risk keyword mapping data list/table for risk evaluation.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti allow a more organized and structured database for risk evaluation as suggested by Shi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti in view of Jain, and in further view of Huck et al., US Patent Publication Number 2011/0055231, hereinafter Huck.
Referring to claim 8, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the invention as described in claim 1, Marchetti discloses a date associated with the event data, wherein the date corresponds to when a location-specific event of the plurality of location- specific events occurred (Col 17 lines 42-57, date of transaction of the client is used for risk evaluation; Col 18 lines 54-58, the transaction of the client can be associated with geographic location).
Marchetti does not explicitly teach including the first event data in the responsive message based on the date being less than a predetermined threshold.
Huck discloses formatted reports are purged from report database 428 based on a threshold age/date. For example, report database 428 and/or report generation service 426 may periodically delete formatted reports older than a threshold age ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the concept of generating formatted report based on threshold age of Huck into Marchetti because both Marchetti and Huck generates reports using data from database and Huck suggest the use to a predetermined threshold to delete data older than the threshold (which is keeping the report contents based on the age being less than a record age threshold as claimed).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti to save system memory by removing the old content that is older than the threshold limit as suggested by Huck.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti in view of Jain, and in further view of Petter et al., US Patent Publication Number 20240012733, hereinafter Petter.
Referring to claim 10, Marchetti in view of Jain discloses the invention as described in claim 9, Marchetti discloses initiating an asynchronous secondary search based on determining that a secondary data source associated with the geographic location of the locator is accessible (Col 8 lines 53-62, searching accessible database).
Marchetti does not explicitly teach identifying a third external database of the one or more databases that is not accessible to the processor; and including in the responsive message, an indication that the third external database is not accessible.
Petter discloses identifying a database of the one or more databases that is not accessible to the processor; and including in the responsive message, an indication that the third external database is not accessible ([0016], if the database is inaccessible, an electronic notification regarding the negative interaction can be transmitted to the system).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the concept of sending a notification to the system about an inaccessible database of Petter into Marchetti because Marchetti and Petter both disclose accessing databases for data and Petter further suggests to inform the system about inaccessible database.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Marchetti so the system would be aware of inaccessible database and avoiding wasting excess resources on unaware inaccessible database.
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 extension fee 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 LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
April 9, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights