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
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/16/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 19-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner’s Note
3. Preliminary mappings of some relevant prior arts:
Crudele et al, US 12,034,739, [Abstract (“verifying an identity of a user based on a data mesh created from various sources of truth” and “retrieving, via the first and second authenticated communication channels, PII of the user from the first and second user accounts and combining the PII into a meshed data set, determining a difference between the PII within the meshed data set, and verify an identity of the user based on the determined difference between the PII within the meshed data set and transmitting the verification to a computer system”)] [Column 2, lines 15-39 (“The additional PII from other accounts provides supplemental user data from other internal data sources or 3rd parties that are verified sources of truth”, i.e., ‘additional data’, and “creating one of these accounts involves Know Your Customer (KYC)”, i.e., ‘customer criteria’)] [Column 5, lines 4-9 and lines 41-51, and column 6, lines 18-20 (“What is important is the general consistency of this data over time as well as the weight of the specific source of data”, i.e., ‘determine a weight of the first-party data’)] [Column 9, lines 47-64 (“the combination of data from the different sources of truth (e.g., financial institution server 130, payroll processor server 140, employer server 150, and other sources 160) can be combined into a data mesh”, i.e., ‘generating a report that outlines a relationship between an initial assessment and the additional data’)] [Column 14, lines 60-67, through column 15, lines 1-4 (“a credit product might offer discounted rates for any customers that maintain income level above a certain threshold, but require their income be monitored to obtain that special rate”, i.e., ‘customer criteria’)] [Column 2, lines 53-67 (“The addition of data from 3rd party sources or supplemental internal sources provides additional, reinforcing data points—creating a “data mesh” for validation by the host platform”)].
Mitchell et al, US 10,839,352, [Abstract (“Intelligent file-level validation “ and “Valid data files can be stored in a database that represents a source of truth and invalid data files can be routed to error handling”)] [Column 3, lines 44-58 (“the database(s) can store data that serves as the source of truth of eligibility data for subscribers, sponsors, partners, and/or other entities (e.g., healthcare providers, etc.)”)] [Column 3, lines 59-67, through column 4, lines 1-13 and column 14, lines 64-67, through column 15, lines 1-14 (“For instance, a rule can be associated with a specified criterion (e.g., age, height, weight, number of dependents, etc.)”)] [Column 6, lines 38-57 (“for an administrator and validating data files such to provide a centralized source of truth,”)] [Column 14, lines 5-15 (“in some examples, the validation module 124 can generate data indicating relationship(s) between the data file 110 and relevant threshold(s) (e.g., a value indicating an extent that the change exceeded a threshold”)].
Frost et al, US 20200301908, [Abstract and paragraphs 23, 26, 31 and 44 (“an intelligent computer platform to use ground truth data to rate source reliability, and application of the source reliability” and “As shown and described with respect to the ground truth data source (170) the ground truth data is organized into a taxonomy, such as the ground truth taxonomy (172).”)] [Paragraph 60 (“if the string has a strong correlation to the source response, then the applied factor will reflect the strong correlation, e.g. strong weight.”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crudele et al (US 12,034,739).
Claim 1:
Crudele suggests a computer-implemented method of verifying and grading first- party information, the method comprising: receiving an initial data set from a user, wherein the initial data set comprises first-party information [Column 14, lines 60-67, through column 15, lines 1-4 (“a credit product might offer discounted rates for any customers that maintain income level above a certain threshold, but require their income be monitored to obtain that special rate”, i.e., ‘customer criteria’ and ‘first-party information’)]. Crudele suggests processing the initial data set to determine a weight of the first-party data, wherein the weight of the first-party data is based on customer criteria [Column 5, lines 4-9 and lines 41-51, and column 6, lines 18-20 (“What is important is the general consistency of this data over time as well as the weight of the specific source of data”, i.e., ‘determine a weight of the first-party data’)]. Crudele suggests assessing the initial data set against a source of truth, wherein the source of truth is a user defined database that serves as a baseline for data comparison [Abstract (“verifying an identity of a user based on a data mesh created from various sources of truth” and “retrieving, via the first and second authenticated communication channels, PII of the user from the first and second user accounts and combining the PII into a meshed data set, determining a difference between the PII within the meshed data set, and verify an identity of the user based on the determined difference between the PII within the meshed data set and transmitting the verification to a computer system”)]. Crudele suggests generating a report that outlines an initial assessment of the initial data set [Column 9, lines 47-64 (“the combination of data from the different sources of truth (e.g., financial institution server 130, payroll processor server 140, employer server 150, and other sources 160) can be combined into a data mesh”, i.e., ‘generating a report that outlines a relationship between an initial assessment and the additional data’)]. Crudele suggests receiving additional data [Column 2, lines 53-67 (“The addition of data from 3rd party sources or supplemental internal sources provides additional, reinforcing data points—creating a “data mesh” for validation by the host platform”)]. Crudele suggests in response to receiving the additional data, assessing the additional data against the initial data set and the source of truth [Column 2, lines 53-67 (“The addition of data from 3rd party sources or supplemental internal sources provides additional, reinforcing data points—creating a “data mesh” for validation by the host platform”)]. Crudele suggests generating a report that outlines a relationship between the initial assessment and the additional data [Column 2, lines 53-67 (“The addition of data from 3rd party sources or supplemental internal sources provides additional, reinforcing data points—creating a “data mesh” for validation by the host platform”)] [Abstract (“verifying an identity of a user based on a data mesh created from various sources of truth” and “retrieving, via the first and second authenticated communication channels, PII of the user from the first and second user accounts and combining the PII into a meshed data set, determining a difference between the PII within the meshed data set, and verify an identity of the user based on the determined difference between the PII within the meshed data set and transmitting the verification to a computer system”)].
Claim 2:
Crudele suggests wherein the additional data is received in response to the initial assessment of the data to interrogate the initial assessment [Column 2, lines 53-67 (“The addition of data from 3rd party sources or supplemental internal sources provides additional, reinforcing data points—creating a “data mesh” for validation by the host platform”)].
Claim 3:
Crudele suggests wherein interrogating the data enhances the data by utilizing third-party data [Column 2, lines 15-39 (“The additional PII from other accounts provides supplemental user data from other internal data sources or 3rd parties that are verified sources of truth”, i.e., ‘additional data’, and “creating one of these accounts involves Know Your Customer (KYC)”, i.e., ‘customer criteria’)].
Claim 4:
Crudele suggests wherein assessing the data is performed using pre- existing training algorithms that are fine-tuned according to the data set [Column 10, lines 56-67, through column 11, lines 1-6 (“the analytical models 240 may be machine learning models such as fuzzy matching, or the like. In this example, the purpose of the analytics 240 is to determine how different/similar the name value is across the different data records”)].
Claim 5:
Crudele suggests wherein when data in the initial data set cannot be assessed against the source of truth, the data [Abstract (“verifying an identity of a user based on a data mesh created from various sources of truth” and “retrieving, via the first and second authenticated communication channels, PII of the user from the first and second user accounts and combining the PII into a meshed data set, determining a difference between the PII within the meshed data set, and verify an identity of the user based on the determined difference between the PII within the meshed data set and transmitting the verification to a computer system”)].
Claim 7:
Claim 7 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is essentially the same as claim 3 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is essentially the same as claim 4 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is essentially the same as claim 5 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 3 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is essentially the same as claim 4 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is essentially the same as claim 5 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 19:
Crudele suggests wherein the trustworthiness of the data is based on degradation of the data over time [Colum 11, lines 63-67, through column 12, lines 1-3, and column 12, lines 16-33 (“Other problems include that the data can be up to a year old and is for the entire previous year, with no data available by quarter, month, week, or day” and “This provides the host with data direct from multiple different “sources of truth” via the connected accounts. The data is typically robust data that is up-to-date within hours of new activity.”)].
Claim 20:
Crudele suggests wherein assessing the initial data set against the source of truth results in a ranking or a grade for the initial data set, wherein the ranking or the grade is based in part on a correlation between data of the initial data set and the source of truth [Column 5, lines 4-9 and lines 41-51, and column 6, lines 18-20 (“What is important is the general consistency of this data over time as well as the weight of the specific source of data”, i.e., ‘determine a weight of the first-party data’)] [Column 9, lines 47-64 (“the combination of data from the different sources of truth (e.g., financial institution server 130, payroll processor server 140, employer server 150, and other sources 160) can be combined into a data mesh”, i.e., ‘generating a report that outlines a relationship between an initial assessment and the additional data’)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crudele et al (US 12,034,739), in view of LaFever et al (US 20230054446).
Claim 6:
The combined teachings of Crudele and LaFever suggest wherein assessing the initial data set comprises masking confidential information from the initial data set to remove protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable identifying information (PII) [LaFever: Paragraphs 843 and 844].
Both references (Crudele and LaFever) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as determining data quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Crudele and LaFever before him/her, to modify the system of Crudele with the teaching of LaFever in order to protect confidential data [LaFever: Paragraphs 843-844].
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is essentially the same as claim 6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Conclusion
10. 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [Hung D. Le], whose telephone number is [571-270-1404]. The examiner can normally be communicated on [Monday to Friday: 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on [571-272-4080]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, contact [800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000].
~TBD~
Hung Le
08/25/2025
/HUNG D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Examiner’s Note
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/17/2005 complies with the provisions of M.P.E.P. 609. The examiner has considered it.