DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In Specification, "Attorney Docket No. 4525.199US1" should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the multiple identifier types” in line 14 of the claim; it also recites limitation “a target identifier type” in line 8. The claim is unclear and indefinite due to the lack of clear antecedent basis for these elements.
Dependent claim 6 recites, “each identifier type included in each of the available identify spaces”. Claim 6 depends from claim 1, however claim 1 recites the limitation “the multiple identifier types” in line 14 of the claim and “a target identifier type” in line 8. claim 6 is unclear and indefinite due to the lack of clear antecedent basis for these elements.
Similarly, claim 7 is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Similarly, claim 11 is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Similarly, claim 13 is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
Similarly, claim 17 is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Similarly, claim 18 is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Dependent claims are being rejected as depending from rejection of parent claims.
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 1-7, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAAS et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0185284 A1) in view of Kwan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MAAS et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0185284 A1) teaches a system comprising a database server configured to store and manage multiple identity spaces; a plurality of client devices configured to provide data requests; and an identity resolution server electronically connected to the database server and the plurality of client devices, the identity resolution server configured to: receive a data request including multiple source identifiers (source ids) and a target identifier type for a target identifier (target id) (paragraph [0089], in response to the request, determining a user cluster that is associated with a requested user identity; also see paragraph [0090], the attribute may be user within a particular zip code, having a particular known demographic or known set of preferences; a known set of preferences may be preferences the user enters within a user account, or may be preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity; also see paragraph [0063], the identity graph may be generated, at least in part, by a user identify platform based on received enterprise transaction data; also see paragraph [0090], the enterprise transaction data may be queried and profile identification may be used to identify specific user profile nodes to which the attribute may be associated);
generate a unified query that determines one or more target ids for each source id of the multiple source ids (also see paragraph [0089] the user profile node may be queried and identified, and the cluster may be identified as the cluster).
MAAS does not explicitly disclose: the unified query including a resolution scheme and multiple paths, each of the multiple paths including one or more steps.
Kwan teaches: the unified query including a resolution scheme and multiple paths, each of the multiple paths including one or more steps (paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; in combination of querying retrieving data to generate identity graph taught by MAAS, it reads on as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the unified query including a resolution scheme and multiple paths, each of the multiple paths including one or more steps into identity graph generation of MAAS.
Motivation to do so would be to include the unified query including a resolution scheme and multiple paths, each of the multiple paths including one or more steps to overcome issue with incorrectly assume the two identifies are different and apply the incorrect of different policies (Kwan, paragraph [0003], line 11-12).
MAAS as modified by Kwan further teach:
determine search priorities for each of the multiple paths based on a matching priority for each of the multiple identifier types included in each step (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0045]-[0046], to join by primitive value attribute “Display Name”; Person A joins to Person C by a display name matches);
query a first identity space on the source ids to extract a first set of identity records that include one or more target ids associated with a lookup identifier that matches at least one of the source ids, the first identity space corresponding to the path of the multiple paths having a highest search priority (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see, paragraph [0045]-[0046], receives the following objects and their types; Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; also see paragraph [0024], creating a dependency graph that includes directed edges that identify dependence of one resource on another; also see paragraph [0032], the system creates an identity graph for processing resource changes; the graph indicates dependencies between resources using directed edges);
determine a portion of unresolved source ids by filtering out the source ids that match at least one of the lookup identifiers in the first set of identity records (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; noted, the remainder of identify objects that are not matched based on primitive attribute values, is interpreted as “a portion of unresolved source ids by filtering out the source ids that match at least one of the lookup identifiers in the first set of identity records”);
query a second identity space on the unresolved source ids to extract a linking identifier for one or more of the unresolved source ids, the second identity space corresponding to the path of the multiple paths having a next search priority (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; the system can infer that match between objects representing the manager after matching the user);
query the first identity space on the one or more linking identifiers to extract a second set of identity records that includes one or more target ids and a lookup identifier that matches at least one of the one or more linking identifiers for an unresolved source id (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; the system can infer that match between objects representing the manager after matching the user; also see paragraph [0045]-[0046], receives the following objects and their types; Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; the system can identify that Person B has the same identity as Person C since both have the same manager; Person E inherit join anchors from Person C, and the synchronization system correctly matches Person B with Person E for the synchronization; once the system has matched Person D and person E and completed the identify graph);
and construct an identity subgraph that includes identity data stored in the first and second sets of identity records (Kwan, paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; the system can infer that match between objects representing the manager after matching the user; also see paragraph [0046], Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; the system can identify that Person B has the same identity as Person C since both have the same manager; Person E inherit join anchors from Person C, and the synchronization system correctly matches Person B with Person E for the synchronization; once the system has matched Person D and person E and completed the identify graph).
Regarding claim 2, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the search priority for a particular path of the multiple paths is further based on a number of hops between identity spaces included in the particular path (paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; noted, direct matches is prioritized over the indirect/inferred matches, which reads on as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the identity data includes one or more of the source ids, target ids, and linking ids and one or more identity attributes (MAAS, paragraph [0089], in response to the request, determining a user cluster that is associated with a requested user identity; also see paragraph [0090], the attribute may be user within a particular zip code, having a particular known demographic or known set of preferences; a known set of preferences may be preferences the user enters within a user account, or may be preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity).
Regarding claim 4, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the identity subgraph includes an identity cluster for each of the multiple source ids that were resolved by the unified query (MAAS, paragraph [0089], in response to the request, determining a user cluster that is associated with a requested user identity; also see paragraph [0090], the attribute may be user within a particular zip code, having a particular known demographic or known set of preferences; a known set of preferences may be preferences the user enters within a user account, or may be preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity).
Regarding claim 5, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 4, further teach wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine a unified identifier for each identity cluster (MAAS, paragraph [0089], in response to the request, determining a user cluster that is associated with a requested user identity; also see paragraph [0090], the attribute may be user within a particular zip code, having a particular known demographic or known set of preferences; a known set of preferences may be preferences the user enters within a user account, or may be preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity; also see paragraph [0063], the identity graph may be generated, at least in part, by a user identify platform based on received enterprise transaction data; also see paragraph [0090], the enterprise transaction data may be queried and profile identification may be used to identify specific user profile nodes to which the attribute may be associated; also see paragraph [0104], an edge may be established based on deterministic factors, for example by comparing similarity of attributes between two user profile nodes; also see Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 6, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine mapping data for a set of available identity spaces, the mapping data including each identifier type included in each of the available identity spaces and one or more pieces of identity space metadata (MAAS, paragraph [0089], in response to the request, determining a user cluster that is associated with a requested user identity; also see paragraph [0090], the attribute may be user within a particular zip code, having a particular known demographic or known set of preferences; a known set of preferences may be preferences the user enters within a user account, or may be preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity; also see paragraph [0063], the identity graph may be generated, at least in part, by a user identify platform based on received enterprise transaction data; also see paragraph [0090], the enterprise transaction data may be queried and profile identification may be used to identify specific user profile nodes to which the attribute may be associated; also see paragraph [0104], an edge may be established based on deterministic factors, for example by comparing similarity of attributes between two user profile nodes; also see Fig. 23; noted, “ preferences derived from user interactions with retail enterprise, for example browsing or purchase activity” is interpreted as identity space metadata).
Regarding claim 7, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine a step sequence for each step based on the mapping data, each step sequence including one or more steps that each correspond to an identity space, the one or more steps each including two or more identifier types of identifiers that appear in the identity space (Kwan, paragraph [0045]-[0046], receives the following objects and their types; in a Group Management environment, there exist the following objects with properties: 1) Person A (Reference ID=refA) with display name "Melissa Meyers," and 2) Person B (Reference ID=refB) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and a "Manager" attribute of refA (referring to Melissa Meyers), in a human resources environment, there exist the following objects with properties: 1) Person C (Reference ID=refC) with display name "Melissa Meyers," 2) Person D (Reference ID=refD) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and no manager set (e.g., "Manager" is null), and 3) Person E (Reference ID=refD) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and a "Manager" attribute ofrefC (referring to Melissa Meyers); Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; the system can identify that Person B has the same identity as Person C since both have the same manager; Person E inherit join anchors from Person C, and the synchronization system correctly matches Person B with Person E for the synchronization; once the system has matched Person D and person E and completed the identify graph).
Regarding claim 11, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the first identity space includes identifiers having an identifier type that has a highest matching priority in the resolution scheme (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; the system can infer that match between objects representing the manager after matching the user; also see paragraph [0045]-[0046], Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; the system can identify that Person B has the same identity as Person C since both have the same manager; Person E inherit join anchors from Person C, and the synchronization system correctly matches Person B with Person E for the synchronization; once the system has matched Person D and person E and completed the identify graph; noted, the primitive value matches type is the highest matching priority).
Regarding claim 12, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the first identity space and the second identity space are asymmetrical (Kwan, paragraph [0045]-[0046], receives the following objects and their types; in a Group Management environment, there exist the following objects with properties: 1) Person A (Reference ID=refA) with display name "Melissa Meyers," and 2) Person B (Reference ID=refB) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and a "Manager" attribute of refA (referring to Melissa Meyers), in a human resources environment, there exist the following objects with properties: 1) Person C (Reference ID=refC) with display name "Melissa Meyers," 2) Person D (Reference ID=refD) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and no manager set (e.g., "Manager" is null), and 3) Person E (Reference ID=refD) with display name "Yoichiro Okada" and a "Manager" attribute ofrefC (referring to Melissa Meyers)).
As per claims 13-16, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 1-4 respectively and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 17-18, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 6-7 respectively and are similarly rejected.
As per claim 20, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 12 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAAS et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0185284 A1) in view of Kwan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079454 A1), further in view of Grady (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0045347 A1).
Regarding claim 8, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to filter at least one of the first set of identity records and the second set of identity records based on a maximum number of links per identifier included in the resolution scheme.
Grady teaches: wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to filter at least one of the first set of identity records and the second set of identity records based on a maximum number of links per identifier included in the resolution scheme (paragraph [0051], filtering the feature data and other aggregate query results based on one or more conditions included in the query data and or the unified queries; filtering the feature data and other aggregate query results based on particular value for an attribute and or field associated with graph component, entity ID, or other piece of source data; for example, selecting all of the fraud links that have a minimum and or maximum length (i.e., a minimum or maximum number of nodes positioned between the connected nodes identified in the fraud link); selecting all of the fraud links from the feature data that or exceed or are below a pre-determined connection strength threshold….)-motivation:.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to filter at least one of the first set of identity records and the second set of identity records based on a maximum number of links per identifier included in the resolution scheme into identity graph generation of MAAS.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to filter at least one of the first set of identity records and the second set of identity records based on a maximum number of links per identifier included in the resolution scheme to address a need to develop a solution that can query and integrated with graph databases of multiple graph database technologies (Grady, paragraph [0002], line 9-11).
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAAS et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0185284 A1) in view of Kwan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079454 A1), further in view of WIENER et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0151771).
Regarding claim 9, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach: wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine the first identity space is included in at least two of the multiple paths (Kwan, paragraph [0011], the system builds the entity graph by first matching some identity objects based on primitive attribute value comparisons; the system fills in the remainder of the identity graph by comparing references to/from the matched identity objects; also see paragraph [0034], the systems looks for related nodes to determine whether a match can be inferred between additional nodes that did not directly match; the system can infer that match between objects representing the manager after matching the user; also see paragraph [0045]-[0046], Person A joins to Person C by a display name match; the system can identify that Person B has the same identity as Person C since both have the same manager; Person E inherit join anchors from Person C, and the synchronization system correctly matches Person B with Person E for the synchronization; once the system has matched Person D and person E and completed the identify graph; noted, there are at least two paths: direct matches and indirect/reference matches, which reads on as claimed) but do not explicitly disclose: store, in cache memory, a set of identity records included in the first identity space.
WIENER teaches: store, in cache memory, a set of identity records included in the first identity space (paragraph [0049], the ID management service includes an output processor that can output IDs and links (e.g., links formed by ID linking) to a memory or cache and/or to an output store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include store, in cache memory, a set of identity records included in the first identity space into identity graph generation of MAAS.
Motivation to do so would be to include store, in cache memory, a set of identity records included in the first identity space to provide technique or techniques to more broadly identify users who might benefit from the messaging of a marketing campaign (WIENER, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, MAAS as modified by Kwan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine the linking ids are included in at least two of the multiple paths; and store, in cache memory, the second set of identity records that include the linking ids.
WIENER teaches: wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine the linking ids are included in at least two of the multiple paths (paragraph [0046], to perform ID linking and super profile creation as to enable the matching of users to the target audience defined campaigns; also see paragraph [0076], the graph processor generates the ID graph, in part using various data stored in the offline data store, the profile store, and log entry store such as ID mapping data, category data, and log data, respectively; the ID processor can use rules to choose or determine which linkages to generate, and where to store the linkage and any respective data; also see paragraph [0082], an ID graph serves to link multiple records (e.g., IDs, category data, etc.) [noted, direct link by ID is the direct path linking]; also see paragraph [0084], the node for user profile ID BKP123 has two edges, which service to link two IDs, namely MAID123 and CID123; each of MAID123 and CID123 has associated category data [noted, indirect path linking]);
and store, in cache memory, the second set of identity records that include the linking ids (paragraph [0049], the ID management service includes an output processor that can output IDs and links (e.g., links formed by ID linking) to a memory or cache and/or to an output store)-motivation: to provide technique or techniques to more broadly identify users who might benefit from the messaging of a marketing campaign (WIENER et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0151771), paragraph [0005])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine the linking ids are included in at least two of the multiple paths; and store, in cache memory, the second set of identity records that include the linking ids into identity graph generation of MAAS.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the identity resolution server is further configured to determine the linking ids are included in at least two of the multiple paths; and store, in cache memory, the second set of identity records that include the linking ids to provide technique or techniques to more broadly identify users who might benefit from the messaging of a marketing campaign (WIENER, paragraph [0005]).
As per claim 19, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168