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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19106255 filed 02/25/2025 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/041613 , International Filing Date: 08/26/2022
Child data
None
Last updated by opsgusr on 02/25/2025 09:07:37
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (CA 31743772) and further in view of Dong (Pub. No. US 2017/0076297 A1).
As to claim 1, Jain discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors (at least one process) (paragraph 4) configured by executable instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving a tree data structure representing a plurality of tags arranged in a hierarchy indicating a business level of abstraction (graph nodes…) (paragraph 6b);
generating a graph data structure by:
matching field tags of the data to a set of child tags of the tree and creating a first node in the graph data structure for at least a parent tag of the set of child tags and a second node in the graph data structure for a resource in the data corresponding to the field tags (plurality of graph nodes…) (paragraph 4);
based on at least one of an amount of matching between the field tags and the set of child tags, or one or more entity relationships, creating, in the graph data structure, a directed edge from the second node to the first node (dynamic edge directed form a respective first node to a respective second node…) (paragraph 4); and
repeating the matching and the creating for a plurality of the parent tags and a plurality of the resources in the data to generate the graph data structure (dynamic updating of at least one entity-related to record) (paragraph 5); and
executing a ranking algorithm on the graph data structure to determine at least one of the first nodes having a rank that exceeds a rank threshold (an entity rank presenting a list of plurality of entities ranked according to a ranking algorithm based on each activity score…) (paragraphs 5 and 37).
Jain does not explicitly disclose based on at least one of an amount of matching between the field tags and the set of child tags, or one or more entity relationships and executing a field level classification of data to obtain field tags related to the data.
However, Jain discloses the dynamic link analysis engine 140 may aggregate activities amongst each entity (e.g., between entity pair). For example, in some embodiments, the second records 109 include merchants, and the matching first records 108 include transaction associated with merchant, including dollar amount paid to or received from the matching merchant in such a scenario… (paragraph 0033-34). This suggests the dollar record matching and amount of dollar is the amount matching between. Since applicant(s) has not provide what an amount matching is and what field tags are. The examiner equate record matching and the dollar amount are the amount of matching the field tags and the set of child tags, or one or more entity relationships.
Dong discloses executing a field level classification of data to obtain field tags related to the data (wherein the client-intelligent object holds a tag importance field that identified how important a particular post tag is, an opinion category field that identifies contextual polarity of a particular post tag, an influent level field that specifies an influence level…) (paragraph 0148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant applicant to include executing a field level classification of data to obtain field tags related to the data as disclosed by Dong to retrieve tags for further processing.
As to claim 2, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein matching the field tags of the data to the set of child tags of the tree includes determining that an amount of the matching exceeds a matching threshold (matching entities with document) (paragraphs 34-35)
As to claim 3, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the operations further comprising applying a weighting to one or more of the directed edges of the graph data structure, the weighting affecting a ranking score of a first node pointed to by the weighted directed edge during execution of the ranking algorithm (an entity rank presenting a list of plurality of entities ranked according to a ranking algorithm based on each activity score…) (paragraphs 5 and 37).
As to claim 4, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the operations further comprising designating a parent tag corresponding to the at least one first node as a business entity (entities are merchant) (paragraph 37).
As to claim 5, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 4, the operations further comprising designating one or more child tags of the parent tag as business entities (entities are merchant) (paragraph 37).
As to claim 6, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a database schema, wherein determining the graph data structure further comprises determining relationships between resources in the database schema, wherein a third node in the graph data structure corresponds to one of the resources in the schema and a fourth node corresponds to another one of the resources in the schema.
As to claim 7, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 6, wherein determining relationships between the resources in the schema comprises identifying a Primary Key-Foreign Key relationship between the resources in the schema (exemplary DBMS managed database may be specifically programed to defined each respective schema of each database…) (paragraph 94).
As to claim 8, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the operations further comprising removing at least one 15 false positive field tag from being associated with the data based on a tag associated with the at least one first node having the rank that exceeds the rank threshold.
As to claim 9, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the ranking algorithm takes into account evidence and counter-evidence for the parent tag (paragraph 37).
As to claim 10, Jain discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the operations further comprising sending, to a client computing device, user interface information to cause the client device to present information related to at least one of the identified target entities in a user interface on a display associated with the client computing device (an indicated of the set of entities on a display of the at least one computing device) (paragraph 5).
As to claim 11, Jain discloses a system as recited in claim 1, wherein executing the field level classification of data comprises determining a similarity score between features of already classified data and features of unclassified data (activity score) (paragraph 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Jain discloses method (embodiment) (paragraph 108) (the embodiment is a method).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Jain discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (computing software language) (paragraph 108) that, when executed by one or more processors (processor) (paragraph 108), configure the one or more processors to perform operations (embodiment) (paragraph 108).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights