NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
REISSUE OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,651,461
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
2. ADDITIONAL TERMS 4
3. REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS 5
4. OTHER PROCEEDINGS 5
5. STATUS OF CLAIMS 6
6. PRIORITY AND AIA STATUS 6
7. INFORMATION CONSIDERED 7
8. DECLARATION 7
9. SPECIFICATION 8
10. CLAIM OBJECTIONS 8
11. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION (BRI) 9
12. CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND 35 USC § 112(f) 11
12.1. Functional Phrase #1 12
12.1.1. Prong (A) 13
12.1.2. Prong (B) 16
12.1.3. Prong (C) 16
12.1.4. Corresponding Structure for FP#1 17
12.2. Additional Functional Phrases FP#2–FP#9 20
12.2.1. Prong (A) 22
12.2.2. Prong (B) 22
12.2.3. Prong (C) 23
12.2.4. Corresponding Structure for FP#2–FP#9 23
13. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (Original Patent Requirement) 24
14. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (Defective Declaration) 26
15. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 101 26
15.1. MPEP Step 1 (Claims 1–23) 28
15.2. MPEP Step 2A – Prong 1 (Exemplary Claim 1) 28
15.3. MPEP Step 2A – Prong 2 (Exemplary Claim 1) 33
15.4. MPEP Step 2B (Exemplary Claim 1) 37
15.5. Dependent Claims 2–8 and 21 38
15.6. Claims 9–20 and 22–23 38
16. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 112(a) 39
16.1. New Matter 39
17. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 112(b) 41
17.1. Insufficient Disclosure Of Corresponding Structure 41
17.2. Conclusion of 35 USC § 112(b) Rejection 41
18. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER 42
19. CONCLUSION 42
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 18/791,584 (“Instant Application”). Based upon a review of the Instant Application, the actual filing date is 01 August 2024 (“Actual Filing Date”).
The Instant Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 11,651,461 (“Patent Under Reissue” or “'461 Patent”) titled “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CRIME LINKING NETWORK.”
An application for the Patent Under Reissue was filed on 25 February 2022 (“Base Application Filing Date”) and assigned by the Office non-provisional U.S. patent application number 17/652,614 (“Base Application” or “'614 Application”) and issued on 16 May 2023 with claims 1–20 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
ADDITIONAL TERMS
The following terms may appear in this Office action and, unless expressly noted otherwise, are defined as follows:
“POSITA” refers to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
“BRI” refers to Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
“MPEP” refers to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024.
“IFW” refers to Image File Wrapper.
“35 USC” refers to Title 35 of the United States Code.
“37 CFR” refers to Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
“AIA ” refers to America Invents Act.
“Original Application” means the prosecution history of the Base Application, including the applications in the patent family’s entire prosecution history. See MPEP § 1412.02.
“Original Disclosure” means the substantive sections of the Base Application (i.e., the abstract, drawings, specification, and original claims) that were present in the Base Application on the Base Application Filing Date.
“Applicant” (uppercase) refers to the Applicant of the Instant Application.
“applicant” (lowercase) refers to an applicant(s) generally.
“patent owner” (lowercase) refers to a patent owner(s) generally and not the Applicant.
“Examiner” (uppercase) refers to the Examiner of the Instant Application.
“examiner” (lowercase) refers to an examiner(s) generally, e.g. the examiner of the Base Application, or any examiner(s) other than the Examiner.
REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 CFR § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Based upon the Examiner’s independent review of the Instant Application and the Patent Under Reissue itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any concurrent proceedings before the Office, ongoing litigation, previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction regarding the Patent Under Reissue.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1–23, as set forth in the preliminary amendment filed on the Actual Filing Date, are currently pending (“Pending Claims”) and currently examined (“Examined Claims”).
Regarding the Examined Claims and as a result of this Office action:
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 251.
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
PRIORITY AND AIA STATUS
Domestic Priority. Based upon a review of the Instant Application and the Patent Under Reissue, the Examiner finds that in the Instant Application there is not a claim for benefit of domestic priority under 35 USC §§ 120 or 119(e). Because the instant application does not claim benefit of domestic priority, the effective U.S. filing date of the instant application is the Base Application Filing Date.
AIA Status. Because the Instant Application does not contain a claim having an effective date before March 16, 2013, the AIA provisions apply. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §§ 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.
INFORMATION CONSIDERED
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or “of record” in the original prosecution of the Patent Under Reissue. Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or “of record” in the original prosecution of the Patent Under Reissue has been considered in the Instant Application and need not be resubmitted.
DECLARATION
On 09 August 2024, Applicant filed two separate reissue declarations: (1) a reissue declaration by the assignee (“Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration”), and (2) a reissue declaration by the inventor (“Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration”). Each of the Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration and the Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR § 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Applicant is respectfully reminded, “the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error” and “[a]ny error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.” MPEP § 1414 II.C. (emphasis added).
Each of the Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration and the Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration states “Broadening of claims 1, 9, and 17. Amendment of claim 13 to conform to the statutory category of claim 13.” Therefore, while each of the Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration and the Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration does identify an error by reference to a specific claim (i.e., claims 1, 9, 13, and 17), each of the Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration and the Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration does not identify the error by reference to specific claim language wherein lies the error. Accordingly, each of the Aug 2024 Assignee Declaration and the Aug 2024 Inventor Declaration does not comply with 37 CFR § 1.175.
A reissue declaration, properly identifying at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application, is required in response to this Office action.
SPECIFICATION
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In at least claim 1, the phrase “a uniqueness level of identifiers in the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data.”
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
37 CFR § 1.173(c) states:
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
Based upon a review of the Instant Application, and in light of 37 CFR § 1.173(c), the Examiner finds there is insufficient explanation of support in the Instant Application for the new/amended claims. Appropriate explanation of support in accordance with Rule 1.173(c) is required.
BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION (BRI)
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01 I. Moreover, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, e.g., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01 II. Therefore, unless otherwise noted below, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of the Pending Claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner finds he cannot locate any lexicographic definitions (either express lexicographic definitions or implied lexicographic definitions) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
The Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other sources to support his interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
database “A collection of data arranged for ease and speed of search and retrieval.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
display “1. a. To present to view; cause to be seen: The doctor displayed her diploma on the wall of her office. The autumn woods display a wide array of colors.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
frequency “3. Statistics a. The number of measurements or observations having a certain value or characteristic.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
graphic or graphical “1. a. Of or relating to written representation. b. Of or relating to pictorial representation. 2. Of, relating to, or represented by a graph: a chart that provided graphic representation of population statistics. 3. Depicted or described in vivid detail: a graphic account of the accident.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
level “1. a. Relative position or rank on a scale: the local level of government; studying at the graduate level. b. A relative degree, as of achievement, intensity, or concentration: an unsafe level of toxicity; a high level of frustration.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
mask “2. a. To cover in order to conceal, protect, or disguise: […]. b. To make indistinct or difficult to perceive: […].” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
model “A mathematical or graphical representation of a real-world situation or object—for example, a mathematical model of the distribution of matter in the universe, a spreadsheet (numeric) model of business operations, or a graphical model of a molecule. Models can generally be changed or manipulated so that their creators can see how the real version might be affected by modifications or varying conditions.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd Ed. 2002).
obfuscate “1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: ‘A great effort was made ... to obscure or obfuscate the truth’ (Robert Conquest). 2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed. 2011).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 112(f) (emphasis added):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
One exception to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard occurs when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 USC § 112(f) (“§ 112(f)”). See MPEP § 2181 et seq. To invoke § 112(f), a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis (“3 Prong Analysis”) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I.
Use of the word “means” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation should be interpreted in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function.
Claim limitations that use the word “means” are therefore being interpreted under § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated below. Conversely, claim limitations that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated below.
The following phrases will be first identified and then analyzed using the MPEP’s 3 Prong Analysis to determine if the claimed phrase invokes § 112(f). If a phrase invokes § 112(f), the corresponding structure for the phrase will also be determined.
Functional Phrase #1
The first functional phrase to be considered is “trained crime linking model trained to identify links between incidents across the first organization system and the second organization system using pairwise similarity measures based on a uniqueness level of identifiers in the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data.” Claims 1, 9, and 17 (“Functional Phrase #1” or “FP#1”).
For purpose of discussion below, FP#1 is broken into the following three parts:
(1) “trained crime linking model” (“Introductory Phrase of FP#1);
(2) “trained to” (“Linking Phrase of FP#1); and
(3) “identify links between incidents across the first organization system and the second organization system using pairwise similarity measures based on a uniqueness level of identifiers in the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data” (“Function of FP#1”).
Prong (A)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (A) requires “the claim limitation uses the term ‘means’ […] or a term used as a substitute for ‘means’ that is a generic placeholder […] for performing the claimed function.”2 MPEP § 2181 I. (“Prong (A)”).3
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that FP#1 does not use the term “means.” Therefore the issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the presumption that 35 USC § 112(f) is not invoked can be overcome. “Even in the face of this presumption, the examiner should nonetheless consider whether the presumption is overcome.” MPEP § 2181 I.
With respect to the presumption that 35 USC § 112(f) is not invoked, “[t]he question is not whether a claim term recites any structure but whether it recites sufficient structure—a claim term is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 if it recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’ Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (emphasis added) (quoting Watts, 232 F.3d at 880). [Emphasis in original.]” Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 972 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“And, again, the question is not whether [the claim term] is utterly devoid of structure but whether the claim term recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.” Egenera at 1374 (emphasis added).
To help understand the meaning of “sufficient structure,” the MPEP and the Federal Circuit have stated that:
Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.
See MPEP § 2181 I. quoting TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Moreover, in assessing whether or not FP#1 meets Prong (A), the Examiner must not only consider the Introductory Phrase of FP#1 in isolation, but the entire FP#1 including the Function of FP#1. See MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In assessing whether the claim limitation is in means-plus-function format, we do not merely consider the introductory phrase (e.g., ‘mechanical control assembly’) in isolation, but look to the entire passage including functions performed by the introductory phrase.”).
Based upon consultation of dictionaries and a review of the record (including a review of the prior art of record), the Examiner concludes that the Function of FP#1 is not coextensive with a general-purpose computer or microprocessor. Therefore, special programming (or algorithm) is required for a general-purpose computer to perform the Function of FP#1. See Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“‘special programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer.”).
Based upon the express wording of FP#1, the Examiner finds that the claim language itself within FP#1 does not recite an algorithm for accomplishing the Function of FP#1. The Examiner also finds that the remainder of each of claims 1, 9, and 17 also does not recite an algorithm for accomplishing the Function of FP#1. For at least these reasons, the Examiner finds that an algorithm to perform the entire Function of FP#1 is not expressly recited in each of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Furthermore, the Examiner has looked to both general and subject matter specific dictionaries4 and finds no evidence that the Introductory Phrase of FP#1, i.e., the term “trained crime linking model,” has achieved recognition as a term denoting structure for performing the Function of FP#1. See above section titled “BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION (BRI).”
Similarly, upon review of the record (including the prior art of record), the Examiner finds no evidence that the term “trained crime linking model” has achieved recognition as denoting structure for performing the Function of FP#1.
Therefore, based upon consultation of dictionaries and a review of the record, the Examiner concludes that the term “trained crime linking model” is not an art-recognized structure to perform the Function of FP#1, and each of claims 1, 9, and 17 does not recite any other structure that would perform this claimed function.
Therefore, because the ordinary meaning of “trained crime linking model” is not an art-recognized structure to perform the Function of FP#1, and because an algorithm is not expressly recited in the claim yet necessary structure for the Function of FP#1 (a special programming function; see above), the Examiner concludes that the ordinary meaning of the Introductory Phrase of FP#1 does not include sufficient structure for performing the Function of FP#1. See at least EON and TriMed, as cited above.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that “trained crime linking model” is a generic placeholder for performing the Function of FP#1, and therefore FP#1 meets Prong (A).
Prong (B)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (B) requires “the term ‘means’ […] or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word ‘for’ […] or another linking word or phrase, such as ‘configured to’ or ‘so that.’” MPEP § 2181 I. (“Prong (B)”).
Based upon the claim language itself, the Examiner finds that the Introductory Phrase of FP#1 (generic placeholder) is modified by the Function of FP#1 (functional language) linked by the Linking Phrase of FP#1. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 meets Prong (B).
Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires “the term ‘means’ […] or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure […] for performing the claimed function.” MPEP § 2181 I. (“Prong (C)”).
Based upon a review of FP#1, and for reasons already discussed above, the Examiner finds that FP#1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire Function of FP#1. In particular, and as already noted above, because an algorithm is not expressly recited in the claim yet necessary for the Function of FP#1 (a special programming function), the Examiner concludes that the Introductory Phrase of FP#1 is not modified by sufficient structure (as defined by the MPEP and the Federal Circuit, supra) for performing the Function of FP#1.
Because FP#1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 meets Prong (C). Because FP#1 meets the 3 Prong Analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I., the Examiner concludes that FP#1 invokes § 112(f).
Corresponding Structure for FP#1
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” In re Aoyama, 656 F3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Aoyama, 656 F3d at 1297 quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, if the claimed phase is meant to cover software, “[i]t is well-established that the corresponding structure for a function performed by a software algorithm is the algorithm itself.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In other words, “[i]f special programming is required for a general-purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed function, then the default rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm applies.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Based upon a review of the Patent Under Reissue and the Original Disclosure, the Examiner is unable to clearly link or associate the Function of FP#1 to sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., a sufficient algorithm) found in the specification.
For example, Applicant’s specification discloses,
Training module 208 may be configured to train a machine learning model 212 to identify related pairs of incidents across organization systems 102. For example, based on the filtered input data from pre-processing module 210 (i.e., input data where each suspect identifier is present in at least two organization systems 102), training module 208 may train machine learning model 212 to identify check if cross-company links meet a sufficient threshold to be accepted. This machine learning model can be dependent on the suspect identifier type, as some types, like social security numbers, are more unique than other types, like suspect full names. The less unique suspect identifier types would then require a more stringent threshold. In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be trained on obfuscated data (e.g., the first or second set of inputs are encrypted before being accessed by handler 206). In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be trained on the raw data. In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be trained to evaluate possible related pairs across cross-company incidents, regardless of whether or not there were matching suspect identifiers. In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be trained to validate whether the cross-company links that were computed from shared suspect identifiers meet a sufficient threshold to be accepted. In some embodiments, this machine learning may not be used at all, hence all computed cross-company links, based on matching suspect identifiers, are accepted as valid by default.
Training machine learning model 212 is not a trivial task, however, as not all suspect identifiers are of equal value in determining links across organizations. For example, while a credit card number may be representative of a strongly unique suspect identifier (e.g., the same credit card number in two incidents is highly likely to be from related incidents), a name may be exemplary of a weakly unique suspect identifier (e.g., the name John Smith in two incidents is not certainly determinative of related incidents, as the name John Smith is common).
Instead, training module 208 may train machine learning model 212 to calculate pairwise similarity measures and thresholds between incidents using a plurality of distance and similarity variables. Such variables, also known as dimensions, include: time distance (in days), represented by the absolute values of the date difference; time of day difference, represented by the absolute values of the difference in the hour of the day in which each incident occurred; geographic distance, cosine similarity between two incident write-ups; a measure of gender similarity; a measure of ethnicity similarity; a measure of vehicle model similarity; a measure of eye color similarity; a measure of hair color similarity; a weekend indicator similarity; physical measurement similarity; height similarity; weight similarity; a maximum text quality score, a minimum text quality score, and age similarity. Such techniques are similar to that described in U.S. application Ser. No. 16/205,104, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
In some embodiments, the pairwise distance calculations may depend on the frequency of the identifier value (not just the identifier type), such as, for example, in the case of “quasi-unique” identifiers (e.g., full names). In the context of names, for example, this frequency may be found from census data. For example, assume there are two crimes with a detected suspect name that is very common, e.g., Michael Jones. It would be less likely that the two crimes refer to the same person, compared to two crimes with a detected suspect name that is very rare, such as Jebidiah Featheringham. The pairwise threshold function could be such that it is inversely proportional to the frequency of the particular ID that is responsible for the linking. For example, machine learning model 212 may utilize a threshold function like geo_dist*sqrt(frequency)<5,000, with 5,000 as the cutoff value chosen for this particular threshold function, which is the upper limit above which pairs may be discarded for not meeting the distance threshold.
To further this example, if the frequency of the name Michael Jones is 10,000 in the United States and the frequency of Jebidiah Featheringham is 100 in the United States, then using this formula, for any two crimes associated with Michael Jones to be linked, they must occur within 50 miles of each other. In comparison, for any two crimes in which Jebidiah Featheringham is detected, they must occur within 500 miles to be linked.
In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be representative of one or more of a binary regression model and/or a Siamese-trained pair of neural networks. In some embodiments, machine learning model 212 may be representative of one or more of machine learning models or algorithms that may include, but are not limited to, random forest model, support vector machines, neural networks, deep learning models, Bayesian algorithms, Temporal Convolutional Networks, and the like.
Once trained, crime linking model 214 may be deployed within crime linking platform 116 for analysis.
Patent Under Reissue, C10:L6–C11:L31 (emphasis added).
The disclosure noted above is insufficient because there is no algorithm clearly linked or associated with the Function of FP#1, i.e., “identify links between incidents across the first organization system and the second organization system using pairwise similarity measures based on a uniqueness level of identifiers in the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data” (emphasis added). In particular, while the specific “threshold function” or “formula” of “geo_dist*sqrt(frequency)<5,000” could be considered an algorithm, it is not clearly linked and associated with the Function of FP#1. For example, the Function of FP#1 includes use of a “uniqueness level of identifiers […];” however, the formula “geo_dist*sqrt(frequency)<5,000” does not include use of the “uniqueness level of identifiers […].”
Because each of the Patent Under Reissue and the Original Disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the Function of FP#1 to sufficient corresponding structure, each of claims 1, 9, and 17 is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(b). A rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is set forth below for claims 1, 9, and 17.
For purpose of applying the prior art only, the Examiner will interpret the disclosed “threshold function” or “formula” as the corresponding algorithm. In particular, the Examiner will interpret the disclosed function/formula of “geo_dist*sqrt(frequency)<5,000” as the corresponding algorithm (structure) of FP#1.
Additional Functional Phrases FP#2–FP#9
The Examined Claims recite the following additional functional phrases:
“one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising […] generating, by the computing system, an association between a first incident at the first organization system and a second incident at the second organization system based on the analyzing” (claim 9; “FP#2”);
“one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising […] generating, by the computing system, a graphical representation of the association between the first incident at the first organization system and the second incident at the second organization system” (claim 9; “FP#3”);
“one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising […] causing, by the computing system, display of a first version of the graphical representation in a first computing device associated with the first organization system, the first version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the second incident (claim 9; “FP#4”);
“one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising […] causing, by the computing system, display of a second version of the graphical representation in a second computing device associated with the second organization system, the second version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the first incident” (claim 9; “FP#5”);
“instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising […] generating an association between a first incident at the first organization system and a second incident at the second organization system based on the analyzing” (claim 17; “FP#6”);
“instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising […] generating a graphical representation of the association between the first incident at the first organization system and the second incident at the second organization system” (claim 17; “FP#7”);
“instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising […] causing display of a first version of the graphical representation in a first computing device associated with the first organization system, the first version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the second incident” (claim 17; “FP#8”); and
“instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising […] causing display of a second version of the graphical representation in a second computing device associated with the second organization system, the second version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the first incident” (claim 17; “FP#9”).
Prong (A)
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that each of FP#2–FP#9 does not use the term “means.” Therefore the issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the presumption that 35 USC § 112(f) is not invoked can be overcome.
Similar to the above analysis of FP#1, Examiner concludes that the ordinary meaning of each of FP#2–FP#9 does not include sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, respectively. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that each of FP#2–FP#9, at best, includes a generic placeholder for performing the claimed functions, and therefore each of FP#2–FP#9 meets Prong (A).
Prong (B)
Based upon the claim language itself, the Examiner finds that each of FP#2–FP#9 includes an introductory phrase (generic placeholder) that is modified by a particular function (functional language) linked by a linking phrase. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that each of FP#2–FP#9 meets Prong (B).
Prong (C)
Based upon a review of FP#2–FP#9, and for reasons already discussed above, the Examiner finds that each of FP#2–FP#9 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions, respectively. In particular, and as already noted above, because an algorithm is not expressly recited in any of the claims yet necessary for each claimed function of FP#2–FP#9 (a special programming function), the Examiner concludes that each of FP#2–FP#9 is not modified by sufficient structure (as defined by the MPEP and the Federal Circuit, supra) for performing the claimed functions of FP#2–FP#9.
Because each of FP#2–FP#9 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions, respectively, the Examiner concludes that each of FP#2–FP#9 meets Prong (C). Because each of FP#2–FP#9 meets the 3 Prong Analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I., the Examiner concludes that each of FP#2–FP#9 invokes § 112(f).
Corresponding Structure for FP#2–FP#9
Based upon a review of the Patent Under Reissue and the Original Disclosure, the Examiner is unable to find sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., an algorithm) clearly linked or associated to each claimed function recited by each of FP#2–FP#9, respectively.
Because each of the Patent Under Reissue and the Original Disclosure fails to clearly link or associate each claimed function recited by each of FP#2–FP#9, respectively, to sufficient corresponding structure, claims 9–20 and 22–23 are indefinite under 35 USC § 112(b). A rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is set forth below for claim 9–20 and 22–23.
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (Original Patent Requirement)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 1–23 are rejected as failing to satisfy the original patent requirement of 35 USC § 251.
“[F]or broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; ‘[i]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.’ Indus. Chems., 315 U.S. at 676, 62 S.Ct. 839 (emphasis added). Stated differently, the original patent ‘must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.’ Antares, 771 F.3d at 1362.” Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis in original).
For the reasons that follow, the Examiner concludes that the Pending Claims of the Instant Application do not satisfy the original patent requirement because they do not comply with the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals and Antares.
The Pending Claims include a method, medium, and system to identify links between incidents across two organization systems using a trained crime linking model. The Pending Claims broaden the Originally Patented Claims by (1) removing the limitation “preprocessing, by the computing system, the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data to remove incidents comprising suspect identifiers not present in both the first database and the second database” and by (2) removing the requirement that the “trained crime linking model” uses the “preprocessed” first and second crime incident data to identify the links between incidents across the two organization systems.
The Examiner finds that the face of the original '461 patent does not disclose an embodiment of the invention where the “trained crime linking model” does not use “preprocessed” first and second crime incident data to identify the links between incidents across the two organization systems, as now claimed by the broadened Pending Claims. Furthermore, nowhere do the written description or drawings disclose that “preprocessing” first and second crime incident data and use thereof by a “trained crime linking model” is an optional feature. Therefore, it does not appear from the face of the original '461 Patent that what is covered by the reissue (i.e., the Pending Claims) was intended to have been covered and secured by the original '461 Patent. For example, the '461 Patent discloses “The computing system preprocesses the crime incident data to remove incidents that include suspect identifiers not present in at least two or more organization system. The computing system analyzes the preprocessed crime incident data to identify links between incidents across two or more organization systems using a trained crime linking model.” See '461 Patent at Abstract (emphasis added). See also '461 Patent at C1:L34–40, C1:L56–63, C10:L6–14, and C14:L3–5.
Furthermore, while “the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims” (Forum at id. (emphasis added)), nowhere does the specification (or drawings) even suggest or indicate an invention where the “trained crime linking model” does not use “preprocessed” first and second crime incident data to identify the links between incidents across the two organization systems, as now claimed, let alone do more than that. For example, in addition to the disclosure noted above, the '461 Patent discloses “While the foregoing is directed to embodiments described herein, other and further embodiments may be devised without departing from the basic scope thereof.” See '461 Patent at C16:L47–49. However, this boilerplate language that further embodiments may be devised does not suggest an embodiment of the invention where the “trained crime linking model” does not use “preprocessed” first and second crime incident data to identify the links between incidents across the two organization systems, as now claimed.
Finally, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the newly claimed combination (lacking the above noted features) would be possible, that is insufficient to comply with the original patent requirement. See MPEP § 1412.01. See also Forum at 1352.
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (Defective Declaration)
Claims 1–23 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 USC § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR § 1.175.
The nature of the defects in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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 1–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106,5 the Examiner’s analysis in this section uses the following MPEP Steps of Table 1 (below) to determine whether a claim recites the following items:
MPEP Step
Does the claim recite ___?
MPEP §
1
A process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
2106.03
2A, Prong 1
A judicial exception, such as a law of nature or any of the following groupings of abstract ideas:
1) Mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic practice; or
3) Mental processes, such as an observation or evaluation performed in the human mind.
2106.04(a)(2)
2A, Prong 2
Any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
2B
Any additional elements beyond the judicial exception that, alone or in combination, provide an “inventive concept” or “significantly more”
2106.05
Table 1: MPEP Eligibility Steps
MPEP Step 1 (Claims 1–23)
Each of claims 1–23 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 17–20 and 23 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); each of claims 1–8 and 21 falls within category of process; and each of claims 9–16 and 22 is directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
MPEP Step 2A – Prong 1 (Exemplary Claim 1)
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method, comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, first crime incident data from stored in a first database associated with a first organization system, the first crime incident data comprising a first set of inputs associated with a plurality of crime incident groupings and a second set of inputs associated with incident data for incidents associated with the first organization system;
accessing, by the computing system, second crime incident data stored in a second database associated with a second organization system, the second crime incident data comprising a further first set of inputs associated with a further plurality of crime incident groupings and a further second set of inputs associated with further incident data for further incidents associated with the second organization system, wherein the second database is accessible to the second organization system and is inaccessible to the first organization system;
analyzing, by the computing system, the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data to identify links between incidents across the first organization system and the second organization system using a trained crime linking model, the trained crime linking model trained to identify links between incidents across the first organization system and the second organization system using pairwise similarity measures based on a uniqueness level of identifiers in the first crime incident data and the second crime incident data;
generating, by the computing system, an association between a first incident at the first organization system and a second incident at the second organization system based on the analyzing;
generating, by the computing system, a graphical representation of the association between the first incident at the first organization system and the second incident at the second organization system;
causing, by the computing system, display of a first version of the graphical representation in a first computing device associated with the first organization system, the first version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the second incident; and
causing, by the computing system, display of a second version of the graphical representation in a second computing device associated with the second organization system, the second version of the graphical representation at least partially obfuscating data associated with the first incident.
For the reasons below, the italicized limitations above represent at least a mental process (i.e., a process that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and/or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions (including business relations) or managing relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Applicant is respectfully reminded, “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III (emphasis added).
“Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Id.
Moreover, “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation[, …] [n]or do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Id.
Furthermore, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04 II.B., although the claim may have limitations directed to multiple abstract ideas (i.e., multiple categories), for purposes of Prong 2 and Step 2B (below), the claim is being treated as directed to a single abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04 II.B. (“During examination, examiners should apply the same eligibility analysis to all claims regardless of the number of exceptions recited therein. Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas. Accordingly, if possible[,] examiners should treat the claim for Prong Two and Step 2B purposes as containing a single judicial exception.”).
The limitation “accessing […] first crime incident data from stored in a first database associated with a first organization […], the first crime incident data comprising a first set of inputs associated with a plurality of crime incident groupings and a second set of inputs associated with incident data for incident