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
Applicant’s Response, filed 01/08/2026, amended claims 1, 7, 9, 11 & 16-20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. The § 112(b) rejections concerning claims 9 & 18 were not addressed in the Response and have been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 101 rejection, Applicant makes several Step 2A Prong Two arguments directed to alleged improvements, including “intelligent data purging to optimize storage and processing resources” and “reduction of active storage requirements and associated system latency”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea recited in the claims is only generally linked to a computing environment and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These alleged improvements are not improvements to the functioning of the particular computer systems involved. As an example, any reduction in data would result in less storage resources required. This does not constitute an improvement in functioning, it is a natural consequence of deleting unwanted data elements.
Regarding the § 103 rejections, Elahi continues to teach the newly amended limitations, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 & 20 have been amended to change “data records” to “data entries”. However, the dependent claims were not amended to reflect this change, and several claims have antecedent basis problems due to “the data records” or “the plurality of data records” no longer having antecedent basis.
These claims are claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 & 18. The examiner recommends standardizing the terminology used throughout the claims to overcome the rejection.
Claims 9 & 18 recite “a session identifier”, but this phrase was already introduced in the respective independent claim. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the same or a different session identifier.
Claims 9 & 18 recite “the data record including . . .” and then recites three elements without any conjunction. It is unclear if the claim requires all three elements (“and”) or if only one is required (“or”).
The remaining claims, not specifically rejected above, are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
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 the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 1, 11 & 20). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites “identifying an audit record that includes a plurality of data entries associated with an attribute of a user; generating a consolidated data record of the attribute in a summary record based on the plurality of data entries associated with the attribute, the generating of the consolidated data record comprising: purging one or more data entries collected earlier than a predetermined time period, merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with a same session identifier while keeping a recent value of the attribute in the plurality of data entries, and merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with different session identifiers while keeping respective values of the attribute along with respective timestamps included in the plurality of data entries, each of the different session identifiers corresponding to a different time period of user interaction with an application associated with a different device of the user; and determining a current value of the attribute based on the consolidated data record of the attribute in the summary record”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 2, 3 & 5-8 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping. Claims 12, 13 & 14-17 recite limitations which correspond to claims 2, 3 & 5-8, respectively. Claims 11 & 20 recite limitations which correspond to claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
These additional elements include: user devices, data storage, database, computer processors, computer memories, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Independent claim 1 recites “storing the current value of the attribute in a final record for downstream processing”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 4, 9 & 10 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping. Claims 14, 18 & 19 recite limitations which correspond to claims 4, 9 & 10, respectively. Claims 11 & 20 recite limitations which correspond to claim 1.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4, 6-12 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
(i) Wong et al. (USPN 7,228,304 B1, hereinafter “Wong”) in view of
(ii) “Data Merging: Process, Challenges, and Best Practices for Combining Data from Multiple Sources” by Ehsan Elahi (published 11/15/2021, hereinafter “Elahi”).
Wong teaches:
1. A method comprising:
identifying an audit record that includes a plurality of data entries associated with an attribute of a user [Wong, column 3, lines 21-30];
generating a consolidated data record of the attribute in a summary record based on the plurality of data entries associated with the attribute [Wong, column 4, lines 26-41];
determining a current value of the attribute based on the consolidated data record of the attribute in the summary record [Wong, column 3, lines 31035 and column 4, lines 26-41]; and
storing the current value of the attribute in a final record for downstream processing [Wong, column 4, lines 26-41].
Wong does not explicitly teach the generating of the consolidated data record comprising: purging one or more data entries collected earlier than a predetermined time period, merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with a same session identifier while keeping a recent value of the attribute in the plurality of data entries, and merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with different session identifiers while keeping respective values of the attribute along with respective timestamps included in the plurality of data entries, each of the different session identifiers corresponding to a different time period of user interaction with an application associated with a different device of the user.
However, Elahi teaches the generating of the consolidated data record comprising:
purging one or more data entries collected earlier than a predetermined time period [Elahi, page 4, section “III. Data Filtering”],
merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with a same session identifier while keeping a recent value of the attribute in the plurality of data entries [Elahi, pages 5-6, section “III. Conditional Merge”], and
merging at least a portion of the plurality of data entries with different session identifiers while keeping respective values of the attribute along with respective timestamps included in the plurality of data entries [Elahi, page 5, section “I. Append Rows”],
each of the different session identifiers corresponding to a different time period of user interaction with an application associated with a different device of the user [Elahi, pages 5-6, section 2.III “Conditional Merge”, describing matching data from different datasets that do not share unique identifiers but are about the same products, which corresponds to data relating to a same user but appearing with different associated fields in different datasets].
Wong and Elahi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data merging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong with the data transformation techniques taught by Elahi to improve data preprocessing and formatting of multiple data sources and layouts before further processing. Wong identifies the problem presented in column 1, lines 41-50: “A significant hurdle faced by most organizations seeking to perform auditing operations is that different systems may record information about events or operations in many different ways and in many different data formats. Moreover, the set of information that is recorded may differ from system to system. In addition, it may be difficult or impossible to correlate the information from the different systems to a related activity or set of activities, since multiple jumps between systems may result in loss of information about the original requestor for the activity.”
The combination of Wong and Elahi teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data records of the attribute is associated with a user identifier, and wherein the user identifier corresponds to one or more session identifiers across a plurality of user devices [Wong, column 2, line 61 to column 3, line 8].
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the audit record is stored in a low-cost archive data storage for long-term data backup retention, and wherein the summary record and the final record are stored in one or more key-value databases [Wong, column 3, lines 36-47 and column 4, lines 32-36].
6. The method of claim 1, comprising: identifying a plurality of data entries in the consolidated data record of the attribute from the summary record [Wong, column 4, line 60 to column 5, line 4].
7. The method of claim 6, comprising: determining that all data values of the attribute in the plurality of data entries correspond to a value; and identifying the value as the current value of the attribute to be stored in the final record [Wong, column 4, line 60 to column 5, line 4].
8. The method of claim 6, comprising: determining that all data values of the attribute in the plurality of data entries correspond to different values; determining a value as the current value of the attribute, the value representing conflicting values collected for the attribute; and storing the value as the current value of the attribute in the final record [Elahi, page 8, section “6. Keeping Data Synchronized Across Systems”].
9. The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving a request to reconstruct a data record from the plurality of data records of the attribute associated with a user identifier; and reconstructing the data record based on the audit record and the final record generated based on the data record, the data record including the user identifier, a session identifier, a value of the attribute collected at a timestamp [Wong, column 4, line 60 to column 5, line 4].
10. The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the audit record, the summary record, and the final record comprise one or more database rows, and wherein one or more of the audit record, the summary record, and the final record comprise one or more JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) objects [Wong, column 3, lines 36-47].
Claims 11 & 12 recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 1 & 2, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 15-19 recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 6-10, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 3, 5, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
(i) Wong et al. (USPN 7,228,304 B1, hereinafter “Wong”) in view of
(ii) “Data Merging: Process, Challenges, and Best Practices for Combining Data from Multiple Sources” by Ehsan Elahi (published 11/15/2021, hereinafter “Elahi”), and further in view of
(iii) Koura et al. (US 2016/0196579 A1, hereinafter “Koura”).
The combination of Wong and Elahi teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the attribute corresponds to consent preference configured by a user associated with a user identifier, and wherein the plurality of data records of the attribute includes the consent preference configured by the user over a period of time across a plurality of user devices.”
However, Koura teaches wherein the attribute corresponds to consent preference configured by a user associated with a user identifier, and wherein the plurality of data records of the attribute includes the consent preference configured by the user over a period of time across a plurality of user devices [Koura, ¶ 0046].
Wong, Elahi, and Koura are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data merging. 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 combination of Wong and Elahi with the data trail analysis techniques taught by Elahi to achieve the predictable result of improving data formatting and tracking when working with multiple data sources for improved data collection and reporting.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the summary record is configured to allow a number of data entries up to a threshold value, wherein the audit record, the summary record, and the final record are associated with a user profile, wherein the user profile includes a plurality of summary records associated with the attribute, and wherein the current value of the attribute is determined based on the consolidated data record of the attribute across the plurality of summary records [Koura, ¶ 0034].
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those recited in claims 4 & 5 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 01/24/2026