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 § 101
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Regarding to claim 21-27
Claim 21
A method comprising:
a. receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
b. persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
c. providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine;
d. matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data;
e. retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
f. providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including steps a) - f). Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step d. “matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data.” Comparing and matching one data (e.g., ambiguous data) to another data (e.g., data in a production data) is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea).
Step e. “retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store.” After identifying matching data, a source identifier of the matching data can be obtained. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea).
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, d and e fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (d) - (e) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations: “matching platform”, “interface’, “ambiguous data”, “a receiving data store”, “native file format”, “firmographic data”, “matching engine”, “source identifier”, “user device”
a. receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
b. persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
c. providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine;
f. providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation a. receiving data, i.e., ambiguous data, b. storing received data, c. providing received data to matching engine, and f. output the search results. These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “matching platform”, “interface’, “ambiguous data”, “a receiving data store”, “native file format”, “firmographic data”, “matching engine”, “source identifier”, “user device”. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to obtain data, storing obtained data, search data that matches the obtained data, and output the search results. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The limitations obtain data, storing obtained data, search data that matches the obtained data, and output the search results are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations obtain data, storing obtained data, search data that matches the obtained data, and output the search results are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities
6) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “matching platform”, “interface’, “ambiguous data”, “a receiving data store”, “native file format”, “firmographic data”, “matching engine”, “source identifier”, “user device” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations “matching platform”, “interface’, “ambiguous data”, “a receiving data store”, “native file format”, “firmographic data”, “matching engine”, “source identifier”, “user device”, a., b., c., and f. do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because obtain data, storing obtained data, search data that matches the obtained data, and output the search results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 22 recites “wherein the source identifier is of a partner organization associated with the firmographic data” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 23 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 23 recites “wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 24 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 24 recites “wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 25 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 25 recites “wherein matching comprises a minhash to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data. The minhash is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 26 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 26 recites “wherein matching comprises a vector multiplication to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data.” The vector multiplication is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 27 depends on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 27 recites “wherein the matching engine includes a machine learning model” The machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 28, 30-35, and 37-40 are similar to claims 21, 23-27. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 29 depends on claim 28 and includes all the limitations of claim 28. Claim 29 recites “wherein the ambiguous data is firmographic data.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 36 is similar to claim 29. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
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.
Claim 21, 23-24, 28-31, 34-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12282455 in view of Bowden U.S. Pub 2009/0204569 A1
Instant Application: 19184716
Patent: 12282455
Claim 21
A method comprising:
receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine;
matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data;
retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having embedded schema information which defines a key-value pair schema within the ambiguous data as input to a matching engine;
matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the key-value pair schema;
retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
However, Patent 455 does not explicitly disclose “the ambiguous data having firmographic data.” Bowden discloses the ambiguous data is firmographic data (fig. 1, firmographic data 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ambiguous data is firmographic data as disclosed by Bowden into Patent ’455 for identifying business entities with specific business objectives such that all information for a company, including its firmographic data, its web content, and any additional confidential user-supplied data can be accessed using a specific common identifier.
Claim 23
The method of claim 21, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 24
The method of claim 21, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 27
The method of claim 21, wherein the matching engine includes a machine learning model.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the matching engine includes a machine learning model.
Claim 28
A system comprising or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by one or more processes, cause the processor to:
receive ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persist the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
provide the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine;
match, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data;
retrieve, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
provide the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
Claim 6
A system comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by one or more processes, cause the processor to:
receive ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persist the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
provide the ambiguous data in a native file format that embeds schema information which is defined by a key-value pair schema within the data as input to a matching engine;
match, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the key-value pair schema;
retrieve, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
provide the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
However, Patent 455 does not explicitly disclose “the ambiguous data having firmographic data.” Bowden discloses the ambiguous data is firmographic data (fig. 1, firmographic data 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ambiguous data is firmographic data as disclosed by Bowden into Patent ’455 for identifying business entities with specific business objectives such that all information for a company, including its firmographic data, its web content, and any additional confidential user-supplied data can be accessed using a specific common identifier.
Claim 29
The system of claim 28, wherein the ambiguous data is firmographic data.
Claim 7
The system of claim 6, wherein the ambiguous data is firmographic data.
Claim 30
The system of claim 28, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 8
The system of claim 6, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 31
The system of claim 28, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 9
The system of claim 6, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 34
The system of claim 28, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 10
The system of claim 6, wherein the matching engine includes a machine learning model.
Claim 35
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which instructions, when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:
receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform;
providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine;
matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data;
retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
Claim 11
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which instructions, when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:
receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform;
persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store which is associated with a set of values of the matching platform and a group of key identifiers of the matching platform;
providing the ambiguous data in a native file format that embeds schema information which is defined by a key-value pair schema within the data as input to a matching engine;
matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the key-value pair schema;
retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store; and
providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform.
However, Patent 455 does not explicitly disclose “the ambiguous data having firmographic data.” Bowden discloses the ambiguous data is firmographic data (fig. 1, firmographic data 120. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ambiguous data is firmographic data as disclosed by Bowden into Patent ’455 for identifying business entities with specific business objectives such that all information for a company, including its firmographic data, its web content, and any additional confidential user-supplied data can be accessed using a specific common identifier.
Claim 36
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 35, wherein the ambiguous data is firmographic data.
Claim 12
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the ambiguous data is firmographic data.
Claim 37
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 35, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 13
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store.
Claim 38
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 35, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Claim 14
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21- 23, 27, 28-30, 34, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden (U.S. Pub 2009/0204569 A1), in view of Hron (U.S. Pub 2023/0134989 A1)
Claim 21
Bowden discloses a method comprising:
receiving ambiguous data at an interface of a matching platform (fig. 1, firmographic data 120, in-house confidential data 135 is received at Data Join Processor 130 of searching system 100);
persisting the ambiguous data to a receiving data store of the matching platform ([0020], line 12-14, “… firmographic data… is stored in a database 140…”);
providing the ambiguous data having firmographic data as input to a matching engine (fig. 1, firmographic data 120 is an input to Data Join Processor 130);
matching, by the matching engine, the ambiguous data to data in a production data store using the firmographic data (database 125) (fig. 1, data join processor 130 matches/joins/combines the firmographic data with the index web content from web content database 125 [0020], line 8-9, “… these multiple sources of data are combined (or joined) using common identifiers…” <examiner note: the identifier is associated with firmographic data and data in database 125);
retrieving, by the matching engine, a source identifier associated with the data in the production data store ([0020], line 16-18, “… firmographic data, its web content, and any additional confidential user-supplied data can be accessed using a specific common identifier…”); and
However, Bowden does not explicitly disclose providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform and providing the ambiguous data in a native file format
Hron discloses providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine ([0027], line 3-4, “… The system 100 receives… one or more electronic documents 102…” [0028], line 8-10, “… The system… may work natively with other electronic forms of documents, such as those generated from word processing programs…” [0030], line 40-47, “… Documents including or otherwise associated with the provided key attribute value may then be identified and aggregated as discussed herein. In general, the key attribute may be any extractable or inferred portion or data of a document, such as a company or party name, a date, a project identifier, and in the case of legal documents related to oil and gas transactions information such as an oil well identifier, a pipeline identifier, etc…” <examiner note: the ambiguous data such as documents including firmographic data, e.g., a company or party name, a date, a project identifier, oil and gas transactions information such as an oil well identifier, a pipeline identifier, in native file format are received at the system 100 [Wingdings font/0xF3] matching engine)
providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform ([0039], “… the aggregated documents based on the key attributes may be… displayed by the user device 114… FIG. 5… displaying aggregated documents associated with a key attribute. In this example, the aggregation of related documents is based on a key attribute of a company name, particularly “Company A”… The example of FIG. 5 illustrates three documents in the aggregation (document A 506, document B 508, and document C)…” <examiner note: “company A” is considered as source identifier because it is associated with the documents A and document B>)
Bowden discloses firmographic data is joined/matched with existing data and common identifiers are associated with the joined data for each business/company. Further, Bowden discloses information about company/business are accessed using the identifiers. However, Bowden does not explicitly disclose providing the ambiguous data in a native file format having firmographic data as input to a matching engine and providing the source identifier to a user device in operative communication with the matching platform. Hron discloses documents in native file format including firmographic data is uploaded and aggregated. An identifier/key attribute is identified to aggregate documents that are related to the identifier/key attribute. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the disclosure of Hron because it is used identify, aggregate, allow user to access related documents to the business entities.
Claim 22
Claim 21 is included, Hron discloses wherein the source identifier is of a partner organization associated with the firmographic data ([0027], “… the electronic document 102 is a legal document, such as a contract between two or more parties…” <examiner note: one of party is a partner of another party, for instance, company A is a partner of another party)
Claim 23
Claim 21 is included, Bowden discloses wherein the ambiguous data is received from a business store (fig. 1, firmographic data 120 is data regarding business, company, enterprise, seller…)
Claim 27
Claim 21 is included, Hron discloses wherein the matching engine includes a machine learning model ([0033], “… Machine learning models may be applied to the text to identify categories and subcategories for the text in operation 404…”)
Claims 28-30, 34 and 35-37 are similar to claim 21-23 and 27. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim(s) 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden (U.S. Pub 2009/0204569 A1), in view of Hron (U.S. Pub 2023/0134989 A1), as applied to claim 21, 28, and 35 respectively, and further in view of Doherty (U.S. Pub 2022/0084091 A1)
Claim 24
Claim 21 is included, however, Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform.
Doherty discloses wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform ([0053], “… The continuous monitoring and learning 220 block may re-assess sellers 120 periodically on schedule, based on an occurrence of a triggering event (such as new data) from one or more sources of data (such as data service 170, tech provider 160, marketplace 150), and/or on-demand by request. For example, the continuous monitoring and learning 220 block may periodically aggregate data from the one or more sources of data, re-assess a seller 120, and the re-assessment to relevant parties, such as marketplaces 150…” <examiner note: block 220 of orchestra is considered as event streaming platform because it receives data from multiple sources and processes continuously>)
Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein the ambiguous data is received via an event streaming platform. Doherty discloses the continuous monitoring and learning 220 block that receives data from multiple sources and process data continuously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the continuous monitoring and learning 220 block as disclosed by Doherty into Bowden and Hron to extract and aggregate documents from multiple sources to obtain additional related documents.
Claim(s) 25, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden (U.S. Pub 2009/0204569 A1), in view of Hron (U.S. Pub 2023/0134989 A1), as applied to claim 21, 28, and 35 respectively, and further in view of Adir (U.S. Pub 2023/0315883 A1)
Claim 25
Claim 21 is included, however, Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein matching comprises a minhash to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data.
Adir discloses wherein matching comprises a minhash to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data ([0070], line 11-15, “… Min-Hash values for the string A “SUNSET BLVD LOS ANGELES” taken from a record from data set A from company A are depicted in column 314 and hash values for the string B “SUNSET BLVD LA” taken from a record from data set B from company B are depicted in column 316…” [0072], line 11-15, “… Strings that end up in the same bucket in any of their 20 buckets are considered similar… As depicted in table 330, the strings in Band 2 are in the same bucket and are candidate matched entities…” [0023], “… one record entry as matching another record entry when the LSHs of the two record entries share at least one of their b signatures, in which case the probability that they are an actual match is at least P, as set up by the optimization process. However, if more signatures match, the probability there is an exact match is in fact higher. The “score” of the match can relate to the number of shared signatures…”)
Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein matching comprises a minhash to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data; Adir disclose using min-hash to determine the similarities of two records. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate finding similarities between records using min-hash as disclosed by Adir into Bowden and Hron because min-hash can identify records do not match exactly due to the same client may differ slightly, due to various causes, such as typos, omissions, different styles, or different word ordering.
Claim(s) 26, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden (U.S. Pub 2009/0204569 A1), in view of Hron (U.S. Pub 2023/0134989 A1), as applied to claim 21, 28, and 35 respectively, and further in view of Lazarus (U.S. Pub 2005/0159996 A1)
Claim 26
Claim 21 is included, however, Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein matching comprises a vector multiplication to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data.
Lazarus discloses wherein matching comprises a vector multiplication to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data ([0035], “… determining whether any two strings represent the same thing, such as variant spellings of a merchant name… Each string (e.g. merchant name) to be compared is given a vector… Any two strings, such as merchant names, can now be compared by taking their dot product. If the dot product is above a threshold… then the strings are deemed to be equivalents of each other…”)
Bowden and Hron do not explicitly disclose wherein matching comprises a vector multiplication to create a similarity score for firmographic fields of the firmographic data; Lazarus discloses strings can be compared by taking their dot product to determine whether the two strings are similar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lazarus’s disclosure because it is beneficially used to identify and normalize merchant names given what is typically a variety of different spellings or forms of a same merchant name in large quantities of transaction data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154