Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 8,442,917 B1), published on May 14, 2013 in view of Wyllie et al (“Wyllie” US 2013/0238623 A1), published on September 12, 2013.
As to claim 1, Burke teaches “generate a new record based at least in part on a transaction from a user” in col. 14: 1-5, fig. 4B (814_01 transaction corresponds to a transaction from a user; 814_5 corresponds to a new record based at least in part on the data input).
It appears Burke does not explicitly teach “identify candidate data of one or more candidates in a candidate pool”.
However, Wyllie teaches “identify candidate data of one or more candidates in a candidate pool” in par. 0016 (“…obtaining a set of combinations of identifiers by, for each record, determining a plurality of identifiers using the data stored in the record…”. Identifiers correspond to candidate data. Record(s) correspond to of one or more candidates in a candidate pool).
Burke and Wyllie are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to data records, disclosed by Burke including “identify candidate data of one or more candidates in a candidate pool” in order to link electronic database records (see Wyllie par. 0015).
Wyllie teaches “compute a plurality of pair combinations between individual ones of the one or more candidates of the candidate pool and the new record” in par. 0033 (“calculating a similarity value for corresponding identifiers from pairs of combinations in the cluster”. Pairs of combination (in the cluster) corresponds to a plurality of pair combinations between individual ones of the one or more candidates of the candidate pool and the new record).
Wyllie teaches “cluster the one or more candidates in the candidate pool and the new record into a group based at least in part on the plurality of pair combinations; update the candidate data based at least in part on the group” in paragraphs [0047-0050] (“calculating a quality value for the cluster containing the new combination; [0048] 4) if the quality value of the cluster is below the pre-determined threshold, splitting the cluster into two or more clusters by removing one or more links between combinations in the original cluster, in the case that the resulting clusters have higher quality values than the original cluster; [0049] 5) linking the new record to any record whose corresponding combination of identifiers is a member of the same cluster as the new combination”. Noting that, according to par. 0039 (“… in step 4 of the method a cluster is split into two clusters by removing an identifier from one of the combinations of identifiers and any links created due to that identifier…”), splitting into two clusters by removing an identifier from one of the combinations of identifiers corresponding to update the candidate data based at least in part on the group).
Burke teaches “send a notification to a client device associated with the user to notify the user of the update to the candidate data” in fig. 4B, step 335.
As to claim 8, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 1.
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Burke teaches “wherein the plurality of pair combinations are at least one of an nC2 pairing or an nCr pairing” in par. 0033 (“…calculating a similarity value for corresponding identifiers from pairs of combinations in the cluster…”. Noting that choosing a pair (2 items) from a set of n items corresponds to nC2 combination).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 2.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Wyllie teaches “cause the computing device to at least generate a graph with individual ones of the one or more candidates representing individual ones of a plurality of vertices” in par. 0087, fig. 5 (“…the unique combinations of identifiers then are considered as nodes in a graph. Edges between the nodes are created whenever the combinations share an identifier…”).
As to claim 10, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 3.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Wyllie teaches “cause the computing device to at least calculate a distance between each of the plurality of pair combinations wherein the distance is calculated by measuring a space between the plurality of vertices” in par. 0087 (“…the unique combinations of identifiers then are considered as nodes in a graph. Edges between the nodes are created whenever the combinations share an identifier…”) and par. 0091 (“…each identifier is compared against all other identifiers of the same type, using a distance measure…”).
As to claim 11, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 4.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Wyllie teaches “wherein the one or more candidates in the candidate pool and the new record are clustered into the group based at least in part on the distance” in paragraphs [0121-0124] (“…a quality value for the cluster containing the new combination 52 is obtained. Again similarly to the previous embodiment, if the quality value is below the threshold, the cluster is analysed to see if it can be split into two or more clusters of a higher quality value than the original cluster, and the process is repeated until no further increase in quality values is possible…”. The record 50 is added into set of existing records, then the cluster is built based on the quality value using similar value (corresponding to distance) for each identifier).
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 5.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Wyllie teaches “cause the computing device to at least calculate a score to determine a level of match based at least in part on the distance between each of the plurality of pair combinations” in par. 0103 (the score is calculated after cluster splitting to determine when to stop creating new cluster as to determine a level of match based at least in part on the distance between each of the plurality of pair combinations).
As to claim 13, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 6.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Burke teaches “at least display a user interface configured to allow the user to specify data to be analyzed” in col. 16: 31-36 (“…in which the reason code and reason description is displayed in step 448 at a later time after opening and reviewing the `Rejected worklist 307…”. Noting that “opening and reviewing the `Rejected worklist 307” is to allow the user to specify data to be analyzed).
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reason to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Wyllie fails to show or suggest a "new record.". Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. Wyllie’s invention is about to link records when their corresponding identifiers are in the same cluster (see paragraphs [0016-0020]). The process of creating a set of clusters of linked combinations of identifiers (par. 0017) is resulting in adding new records whose corresponding combination of identifiers are member of the same cluster.
In addition, Applicant also argues that “Additionally, the Office Action notes on page 3 that "[i]dentifiers correspond to candidate data. Record(s) correspond to of one or more candidates in a candidate pool." Following this logic, Wyllie would need to show the combination calculation per record and not per identifier combination”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. The combination calculation per record is utilizing its corresponding combination of identifiers.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10 of the remarks, applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Wyllie fails to show or suggest updating identifiers as the Office Action has previously analogized the identifiers of Wyllie to the candidate data in the pending claims. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Wyllie fails to show or suggest "update[ing] the candidate data based at least in part on the group." Additionally, Burke fails to cure this deficiency”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. According to par. 0039, Wyllie discloses that “… in step 4 of the method a cluster is split into two clusters by removing an identifier from one of the combinations of identifiers and any links created due to that identifier…”. It is noted that “removing an identifier” corresponding to update the candidate data.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 9:30am-7pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164