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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/10/2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Obviousness Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,949,. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims represent an obvious variant of the allowed parent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to a server system and corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium that (i) provide, in a data pipeline, a plurality of data connections to a plurality of external data sources, (ii) ingest a plurality of data files within a current specified time period, (iii) consolidate data entries of false data entities into a consolidated list for the current specified time period, (iv) compare the consolidated list for the current specified time period with a previous consolidated list corresponding to a previous specified time period to identify one or more differences, and critically, (v) display, using a graphical user interface (GUI), the identified differences in association with a given false data entity.
The prior art of record, including that considered in the related parent case, teaches ingestion of fraud-related data and maintenance of watchlists. However, the art fails to teach or suggest the claimed combination of (1) time-period–specific consolidated lists, (2) comparison between consolidated lists corresponding to different specified time periods to generate entity-level differences, and (3) display of those specific identified differences in association with a given false data entity via a GUI. The claims require not merely updating a database or regenerating a list, but performing a structured temporal comparison between successive consolidated datasets and presenting the resulting differences at the entity level. The cited art does not disclose or render obvious this integrated pipeline-to-GUI delta presentation architecture.
Importantly, the claims are not directed to a generic display of stored information. Rather, the displayed information is the result of a specific technical sequence: multi-source ingestion within a defined time window, structured consolidation into a time-bound consolidated list, comparison against a prior consolidated list tied to a prior specified time period, and identification of differences between those structured lists. The display limitation is therefore functionally and architecturally tied to the temporal consolidation and comparison processes. The prior art fails to teach or suggest this particular temporal snapshot comparison framework coupled with entity-associated difference presentation.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the invention by reciting deduplication of multiple files from a single source within the same period, use of unique primary keys and normalization to a common data structure, merging of entries based on matching contact information, GUI-driven database updates, ingestion of viewing data, analytics generation, screening file generation, and daily execution tied specifically to “today” and “yesterday.” These additional limitations further distinguish the claimed subject matter from conventional fraud watchlist systems and were not shown or suggested by the prior art.
Accordingly, the claims are considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CASANOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST).
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/JORGE A CASANOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165