DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 12/23/24.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63/116544, filed 11/20/20 and US 17/530352 filed 11/18/2021 (now US 12211104) has been received and acknowledged.
A terminal disclaimer was filed and approved 1/8/26.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
EXAMINER NOTE: Examiner requests for Applicant’s Attorney to contact Examiner to discuss potential amendments to overcome the outstanding rejections prior to submitting a response to the this office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
Examiner contacted Attorney Shaun Sluman to request a Terminal Disclaimer be filed. A terminal disclaimer was filed and approved 1/8/26.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of multi-cluster consolidation system. In the instant case, Claims 12-16 are directed to a process. Claims 1-11 are directed to a system. Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Consolidating data is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
A multi-cluster consolidation…, comprising: a … that respectively comprise different instances of:
a …; and
a …, in a particular cluster of the plurality of clusters, is a … configured to perform policy operations based on a distinct set of records stored…; and
a record consolidator, executed via a …r, configured to:
determine that a first record, indicating first policy data associated with a first policy, and a second record, indicating second policy data associated with a second policy, share a set of attributes,
wherein: the first record is … in a first … of a first … and the second record is …, based on an initial cluster assignment, in a second … of a second …;
add, based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, the second policy data from the second record into the first record in the first database, wherein adding the second policy data into the first record causes:
a first instance of the policy management …, in the first cluster, to use the first record to perform the policy operations for the first policy and the second policy together; and
change, based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, an indicator of the second record, wherein changing the indicator of the second record causes:
a second instance of the policy management …, in the second cluster, to avoid using the second record to perform the policy operations for the second policy.
12. A … method for consolidating data within …, comprising:
determining, by a record consolidator executed by a …, that a first record and a second record share a set of attributes,
wherein: the first record indicates first policy data associated with a first policy, the first record is … in a first … of a first cluster, of the plurality of clusters, that comprises a first policy management … configured to perform policy operations based on a first set of records stored in the first …, the second record indicates second policy data associated with a second policy, and the second record is …, based on an initial cluster assignment, in a second … of a second cluster, of the plurality of clusters, that comprises a second policy management …configured to perform the policy operations based on a second set of records stored in the second …;
adding, by the record consolidator, and based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, the second policy data from the second record in the second …of the second cluster into the first record in the first database of the first cluster,
wherein: adding the second policy data into the first record causes the first policy management … to use the first record to perform the policy operations for the first policy and the second policy together; and
changing, by the record consolidator, and based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, an indicator of the second record in the second … of the second cluster,
wherein: changing the indicator of the second record causes the second policy management … in the second cluster, to avoid using the second record to perform the policy operations for the second policy.
17. … a record consolidator associated with a plurality of clusters that, when executed by at least …comprising:
determining that a first record and a second record share a set of attributes,
wherein: the first record indicates first policy data associated with a first policy, the first record is stored in a first …of a first cluster, of the plurality of clusters, that comprises a first policy management… configured to perform policy operations based on a first set of records stored in the first…, the second record indicates second policy data associated with a second policy, and the second record is stored, based on an initial cluster assignment, in a second database of a second cluster, of the plurality of clusters, that comprises a second policy management …configured to perform the policy operations based on a second set of records stored in the second …;
adding, based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, the second policy data from the second record in the second database of the second cluster into the first record in the first database of the first cluster, wherein: adding the second policy data into the first record causes the first policy management … to use the first record to perform the policy operations in association with the first policy and the second policy together; and
changing, based on determining that the first record and the second record share the set of attributes, an indicator of the second record in the second… of the second cluster, wherein:
changing the indicator of the second record causes the second policy management system, in the second cluster, to avoid using the second record to perform the policy operations in association with the second policy.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of: determining…indicates… adding… to use…changing… to perform….do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e.storing/stored) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 12-16 are directed to a process. Claims 1-11 are directed to a system. Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system, database,
cluster, computing devices, processors, and instructions merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [106-115] Fig. 7, system, database, computing device, processors)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-11, 13-16, 18-20) introduce the additional elements of an importer/importer functions (Claims 2, 3, 18,); adding… changing… (Claims 4, 14); …wherein clauses further defining the second record…. (Claims 5, 13) the record consolidator. (Claims 6, 7, 15); wherein clauses further defining the trigger event… (Claims 8, 9) ; wherein clauses further defining first cluster… (Claims 10, 11, 16, 19, 20). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [106-115] Fig. 7, system, database, computing device, processors)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art of Record
The closest prior art of record US 8719063 B1 , Wade et al. hereinafter referred
to as Wade (discloses comparing information during a process for issuing
insurance policies) further in view of US 10853033 B1, Meyles et al. hereinafter
referred to as Meyles (teaches fusing insurance policy database tables including
clustered data and data deduplication) generally disclose the concepts of
processing various insurance policy data/records/attributes and fusing insurance
policy database tables.
Even though the prior art of record discloses the general concepts cited above, the prior art of record fails to teach consolidating database records characterized by
shared attributes including adding data from one record and cluster to another
record and cluster.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200111545 A1 (Deduplication of medical concepts from patient information)
US 20250298812 A1 (Multi-cluster duplicate record detection)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691