Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Detailed Action
Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 9-11 and 19-20 and presented claims 1-20 for reconsideration on 11/05/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O'Neill et al. Patent No .: US 8,731,971 B1 (O'Neill), in view of Najar et al., Pub. No.: US 2025/0370969 A1 (Najar) , Huang et al., “ORPHEUSDB: bolt-on versioning for relational databases (extended version))” (Huang) and Kumar Pub. No.: US 2024/0045864 A1 (Kumar).
Claim 1. O'Neill teaches:
A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of entity records; (6:54-7:5, 8:42-55, 13:60-14:11, data records/fragments related to an entity are received)
processing the plurality of entity records to determine one or more groups of related entity records included in the plurality of entity records, wherein each of the one or more groups of related entity records identify a corresponding common underlying entity; (6:54-7:5, 8:42-9:40, one group of data records/fragments is determined related to an entity)
for a specific entity record group included in the determined one or more groups of related entity records, creating a new global specific merged entity record that merges elements of individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group while retaining the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group as separate stored records, wherein the new global specific merged entity record is accessible in a general user view (6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24, a consolidated record is a new global specific merged record: “a user can get a consolidated view of a record, or a set of records at any point-in-time”)
O'Neill did not teach but Najar teaches using a machine learning model to embed the plurality of entity records into embeddings and clustering candidate relationships between entity records based on a similarity measurement calculated between the embeddings. (Najar, ¶¶ 37-38, 40, 50, 88-92, “Once the data is split into chunks, each chunk may be converted into an embedding…This conversion may be performed by an LLM or another type of machine learning model…The described embeddings, which are dense vector representations of the data, may be created by the system…capturing the semantic meaning of textual content …the method…proceeds to generate groups of records from the dataset based on the determined fields…a large language model (LLM) may be utilized to annotate pairs of records from the generated groups to determine matching records…the LLM and/or classifier may merge the groups of matching records into one or more master records”)
The applied references are concerned with generating a consolidated record representing an entity as shown above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references for using a machine learning model to embed the plurality of entity records into embeddings and clustering candidate relationships between entity records based on a similarity measurement calculated between the embeddings because doing so would further improve the record consolidation as taught by O'Neill by utilizing available machine learning models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) for achieving the same predictable result of generating a master record after processing multiple records related to an entity.
O'Neill as modified did not specifically disclose but Huang discloses:
establishing a sandboxed analytical environment as a persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, wherein the sandboxed analytical environment is specific to a law enforcement investigation and operationally isolated from the general user view; (Secs. 2-2.3, a user is able to copy a version of a record, e.g., a new global specific merged record, from a database which is accessible to all users to the user interface available to the user using checkout command for modifying and creating a new version of the record and add the new version of the record to the database if desired to be accessed by all users: “ORPHEUSDB is a dataset version management system that is built on top of standard relational databases… The fundamental unit of storage within ORPHEUSDB is a collaborative versioned dataset (cvd) to which one or more users can contribute… users interact with ORPHEUSDB via the command line, using both SQL queries… we also describe an interactive user interface depicting the version graph, for users to easily explore and operate on dataset versions… Users can operate on cvds much like they would with source code version control. The first operation is checkout: this command materializes a specific version of a cvd as a newly created regular table within a relational database that OrpheusDB is connected to. The table name is specified within the checkout command…Note that only the user who performed the checkout operation is permitted access to the materialized table, so they can perform any analysis and modification on this table without interference from other users, only making these modifications visible when they use the commit operation…The commit operation adds a new version to the cvd, by making the local changes made by the user on their materialized table visible to others”)
providing within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view a visual representation of an investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record for the specific law enforcement investigation; (Secs., 2-2.3, see above for details)
receiving within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, a user interaction with the visual representation indicating a modification to the investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record; (Secs., 2-2.3, see above for details)
creating for the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, a new replacement merged entity record to implement the modification, wherein the new replacement merged entity record replaces the investigation-specific version specifically within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view for the specific law enforcement investigation and is not available outside the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, while the new global specific merged entity record remains unmodified and concurrently accessible in the general user view outside of the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view. (Secs., 2-2.3, see above for details)
O'Neill provides “unified consolidated view(s) of entities as they change over time, even in the event of incompatible schema changes…” and “enables the user to search across all entities as of a point-in time”. O'Neill further discloses “the inventive systems of the instant invention can be applied to analyze and/or track at least the following: prescriber remediation, data quality and enrichment, prescriber eligibility, and/or spend analysis…the instant invention allows interested parties to identify retroactively potentially fraudulent claims and prescriptions by maintaining entities overtime and allowing real-time search of that data as of a particular point in time”. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references for including establishing a sandboxed analytical environment as a persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, wherein the sandboxed analytical environment is specific to a law enforcement investigation and operationally isolated from the general user view; providing within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view a visual representation of an investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record for the specific law enforcement investigation; receiving within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, a user interaction with the visual representation indicating a modification to the investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record; and creating for the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, a new replacement merged entity record to implement the modification, wherein the new replacement merged entity record replaces the investigation-specific version specifically within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view for the specific law enforcement investigation and is not available outside the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, while the new global specific merged entity record remains unmodified and concurrently accessible in the general user view outside of the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view as taught by Huang into O'Neill because doing so would further provide for users of O'Neill perform search operations for desired version of records “so they can perform any analysis and modification” on the records “without interference from other users, only making these modifications visible when they” add the modified records as new version of the records to the database.
O'Neill as modified did not specifically disclose but Kumar discloses:
marking the new global specific merged entity record that has been replaced by the new replacement merged entity record as replaced; and omitting to present the new global specific merged entity record via a default search setting of the general user view based at least in part on the new global specific merged entity record being marked as replaced. (Kumar, wherein a resolved entity is marked with a state indicating the time of generation and an entity with the latest time of generation is presented in response to a query: ¶¶ 54, 69- 73, “Resolution component/engine 150 efficiently resolves entities from a set of records 160 and updates the resolution upon receiving new records.…a high-throughput linking 104 reads data from batch data sources at time t0. High-throughput linking 104 performs linking and saves the output in the state store 108. The state store 108 stores the states of all entities at time t0. This output can be labeled state Generation 0. Process 130 can mark this as the current state store 108… Real-time linking 102 reads data from the state store and performs linking, applies the change on the state of the affected entities, and saves the results in the stage change store 106. The output of real-time linking 102 represents the latest state of an entity… at time t1+t+x, lambda switch 128 invalidates generation 0 of the state store 108, adjusts the state change store, and makes generation 1 the current state store. After the switch, on-demand linking 110 switches to generation 1 of the state store to serve any queries”)
O'Neill as modified provides for a user to access a particular version of a dataset as desired. (see O’Neill and Huang above for example). It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references for teaching marking the new global specific merged entity record that has been replaced by the new replacement merged entity record as replaced; and omitting to present the new global specific merged entity record via a default search setting of the general user view based at least in part on the new global specific merged entity record being marked as replaced because doing so would further provide for an alternative for viewing a latest version of the data in response to query for achieving the same predictable result of viewing entities versions as desired)
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of entity records includes person records. (O'Neill, 8:42-55, “practitioner names”)
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of entity records is associated with real-world objects for law enforcement. (O'Neill, 12:37-65, “City”)
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the new replacement merged entity record is scoped for a specific user group. (O'Neill, 14: 39-45, records are scoped based on a point in time specified by a specific interested party; Huang, sec. 2.2, “only the user who performed the checkout operation is permitted access to the materialized table, so they can perform any analysis and modification on this table without interference from other users, only making these modifications visible when they use the commit operation”)
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user indication of one or more of the plurality of entity records to merge into a second new merged entity record for a new specific analysis or a user group of one or more users; and creating the second new merged entity record with modification scoped to the new specific analysis or the user group and not available to a user outside the new specific analysis and/or the user group. (O'Neill, 6:43-53, 7: 2-5, 8: 34-41, 12:20-28, 12:65-13:6, 14:30-45, 15: 1-65, 16:12-43, wherein a point-in-time search with respect to an entity displays loaded modified entity information for the requested time and for a specific purpose. “For example, prescriber eligibility addresses the need to determine if a practitioner was eligible to issue a particular prescription based on their licenses, sanction information, and specialty…the instant invention allows interested parties to identify retroactively potentially fraudulent claims and prescriptions by maintaining entities overtime and allowing real-time search of that data as of a particular point in time”; Huang, sec. 2.2, “only the user who performed the checkout operation is permitted access to the materialized table, so they can perform any analysis and modification on this table without interference from other users, only making these modifications visible when they use the commit operation”)
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a visual indication in the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface that the new global specific merged entity record is of a merged record type that is different from an individual entity record type. (O'Neill, 6:43-53, 7: 2-5, 8: 34-41, 12:20-28, 12:65-13:6, 14:30-45, 15: 1-65, 16:12-43, wherein a point-in-time search result is an indication of the merged records; Huang, sec. 2.2, wherein “interactive user interface depicting the version graph, for users to easily explore and operate on dataset versions” suggests providing a visual indication in the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface)
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein retaining the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group includes hiding the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group as hidden source records of the new global specific merged entity record. (O'Neill, 6:43-53, 7: 2-5, 8: 34-41, 12:20-28, 12:65-13:6, 14:30-45, 15: 1-65, 16:12-43, wherein a point-in-time search result shows a golden consolidated record: “a golden record is a consolidated view of an entity, where data is merged from multiple fragments, across feeds, based on feed priority, age of the data, and various other factors”)
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication to view the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group and providing a list of the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24: “the instant invention utilize an indexing mechanism that allows searching stored/received data as of any historical point-in-time”)
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, the user interaction with the visual representation indicating the modification to the investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record comprises:
receiving an indication to add a new individual related entity record to the specific merged entity record; (O'Neill, 6:43-7:5, 10:45-64, versions of an entity are created based on additional data records over time, each version is identifiable by a timestamp; Huang, sec. 2.2, wherein “interactive user interface depicting the version graph, for users to easily explore and operate on dataset versions” suggests receiving within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view)
creating the new replacement merged entity record with the new individual related entity record and the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group; (O'Neill, 6:43-7:5, 10:45-64, versions of an entity are created based on additional data records over time, each version is identifiable by a timestamp wherein any old version is replaced with a new version; Huang, sec. 2.2)
Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein marking the new global specific merged entity record that has been replaced by the new replacement merged entity record as replaced includes providing a visual icon indication in a user interface of a replaced status. (O'Neill, 6:43-7:5, 10:45-64, versions of an entity are created based on additional data records over time, each version is identifiable by a timestamp wherein an old version is identifiable by a new version visually by a timestamp; Huang, sec. 2.2, wherein the version graph includes visual icon indication for a replaced status)
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving within the persistent investigation-specific layer user interface view, the user interaction with the visual representation indicating the modification to the investigation-specific version of the new global specific merged entity record comprises:
receiving an indication to remove a specific individual related entity record from the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group; (O'Neill, 6:43-7:5, 10:45-64, versions of an entity are created based on additional data records over time wherein a new information, e.g., an address replaces an old information for an entity and wherein historical information for an entity is searchable by time-point search; Huang, sec. 2.2, wherein the version graph is an interactive user interface)
creating the new replacement merged entity record without the specific individual related entity record from the individual related entity records of the specific entity record group; and (O'Neill, 6:43-7:5, 10:45-64, versions of an entity are created based on additional data records over time wherein a new information, e.g., an address replaces an old information for an entity and wherein historical information for an entity is searchable by time-point search; Huang, sec. 2.2, wherein the version graph is an interactive user interface)
Claim 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a copy of the plurality of entity records in a database, wherein the plurality of entity records is from a plurality of different data sources. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24: “receive data from numerous sources”…“the instant invention utilize an indexing mechanism that allows searching stored/received data as of any historical point-in-time”)
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, the new global specific merged entity record inherits investigation graph connections of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24: “the instant invention utilize an indexing mechanism that allows searching stored/received data as of any historical point-in-time”)
Claim 14. The method of claim 1, the new global specific merged entity record inherits related case connections of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group. (O'Neill, 14: 26-38, 16: 3-65, wherein “For example, prescriber eligibility addresses the need to determine if a practitioner was eligible to issue a particular prescription based on their licenses, sanction information, and specialty. In some case, for prescriber eligibility, it can be critical to have the most current information on which to base the decisions…for compliance and auditing…the inventive computer systems of the instant invention maintain the data over time, to be able to report out historically why a decision was made” indicates a new version of an entity is connected to all valid information e.g., related case of the old version of the entity)
Claim 16. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user interface preference on whether to utilize the new global specific merged entity record instead of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group or utilize the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group instead of the new global merged entity record. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24: data records and a version of consolidated record is utilized based on requested time-point)
Claim 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the user interface preference for the utilization of the new global specific merged entity record or the utilization of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group is for an entity search or a layer view. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24: data records and a version of consolidated record is utilized based on requested time-point)
Claim 18. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection of a value of the new global specific merged entity record and in response indicating which of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group includes the value. (O'Neill, 6:10-7:5, 8:34-9:40, 12:20-28, 12:66-13-6, 14: 39-45, 16:12-24, 17:44-61, data records and a version of consolidated record is utilized based on requested time-point)
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O'Neill, Najar, Huang and Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Finlay et al., “Criminal Justice Administrative Records System (CJARS)” (Finlay).
Claim 15. O'Neill as modified teaches:
The method of claim 1, the new global specific merged entity record inherits related information connections of the individual related entity records included in the specific entity record group. (O'Neill, 14: 26-38, 16: 3-65, wherein “For example, prescriber eligibility addresses the need to determine if a practitioner was eligible to issue a particular prescription based on their licenses, sanction information, and specialty. In some case, for prescriber eligibility, it can be critical to have the most current information on which to base the decisions…for compliance and auditing…the inventive computer systems of the instant invention maintain the data over time, to be able to report out historically why a decision was made” indicates a new version of an entity is connected to all valid connected information of the old version of the entity for processing the information)
O’Neill as modified did not specifically disclose related information as related arrest but Finlay explicitly incudes arrest information related to an entity. (Sec. 2-3, “CJARS acquires records of criminal cases such as those of arrests and bookings, criminal court case filings, and terms of probation, prison, and parole… All data and other relevant information describing the data are kept in a secure data enclave… Original data are cleaned and harmonized to fit a common CJARS schema… The harmonized data are appended and merged with other criminal justice records in CJARS to create a single dataset spanning agencies and jurisdictions… CJARS uses personally identifiable information to link records that all belong to the same individual”)
O'Neill as modified process and link data records related to an entity. It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine them for processing the data records comprising arrest records related to an entity for achieving the same predictable result of assigning different related records to the same entity.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejections as provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN ALMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-7722. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHSEN ALMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159