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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/247,860 filed on 06/24/2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Priority
This application is a CON of 18/606,948 filed on 03/15/2024 which is a CON of 17/834,716 filed on 06/07/2022 (PAT 11,934,415) which is a CON of 16/838,844 filed on 04/02/2020 (PAT 11,360,987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1 and 11 recite modifying the activity data structure; generating at least one new graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, the at least one new graph node being associated with at least one unknown entity in activity data of at least one entity-related activity record; generating at least one new dynamic edge between the at least one new graph node and at least one additional graph node associated with at least one known entity based at least in part on the plurality of entity-related activity records to map the at least one unknown entity with the plurality of entities.
The limitations of modifying…, generating…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “modifying…”, “generating…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually modifying activity data structure, generate graph node, generate dynamic edge, using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – accessing…. The “accessing ” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “accessing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 2 and 12 recite merging, by the at least one processor, the plurality of dynamic edges into at least one merged dynamic edge between the at least one known entity and the at least one unknown entity. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., merging) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 3 and 13 recite determining, by the at least one processor, an aggregate quantity associated with the plurality of dynamic edges based at least in part on an aggregation of each respective quantity of the at least one respective activity associated with the plurality of dynamic edges. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 4 and 14 recite determining, by the at least one processor, activity quantity characteristics associated with the at least one unknown entity based at least in part on the aggregate quantity in response to a graph query of the activity data structure for queried activity quantity characteristics from at least one user computing device associated with at least one user; and generating, by the at least one processor, at least one entity specific data record associated with the at least one unknown entity to store the activity quantity characteristics of the at least one unknown entity. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining, generating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 5 and 15 recite determining, by the at least one processor, an activity score for the plurality of dynamic edges based at least in part on an aggregate quantity associated with activity between each respective entity of each respective graph node. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 6 and 16 recite wherein the activity comprises monetary transactions between two or more entities associated with two or more graph nodes. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 7 and 17 recite receiving, by the at least one processor, the monetary transactions from business-to-business payments. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 8 and 18 recite receiving, by the at least one processor, the monetary transactions from consumer purchases. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 9 and 19 recite updating, by the at least one processor, the plurality of dynamic edges according to a predetermined period. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., updating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 10 and 20 recite wherein the predetermined period comprises one day. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0361864; hereinafter “Rice”) in view of Beringer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0114384; hereinafter “Beringer”).
As per claims 1 and 11, Rice discloses accessing, by at least one processor, an activity data structure comprising: a plurality of graph nodes representing a plurality of entities associated with a plurality of entity-related activity records, (See Fig. 4, paras. 65-67, wherein node graph with plurality of nodes and edges, activities, records are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
modifying, by the at least one processor, the activity data structure comprises: generating at least one new graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, the at least one new graph node being associated with at least one unknown entity in activity data of at least one entity-related activity record; (See Table 2, paras. 135-136, 139-140, wherein creating new node profile process are disclosed, also See paras. 172, 492, 625, wherein creating new node profile for unknown entity in which “tagging engine 265 can tag the electronic activity as an out of office response but further allow the node profile manager 220 to update the node profile of the nodes to indicate the potential relationship between the person who is out of office and the second person to contact in their absence or create a new node profile for that person if such a node profile doesn't yet exist” [0172] are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
generating at least one new dynamic edge between the at least one new graph node and at least one additional graph node associated with at least one known entity based at least in part on the plurality of entity-related activity records to map the at least one unknown entity with the plurality of entities. (See Figs. 1, 4, paras. 65-67, 70, 492, wherein node graph with plurality of nodes and edges in which “node graph can include a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges between the nodes indicating activity or relationships that are derived from a plurality of data sources that can include one or more types of electronic activities” [0065] are disclosed, also See para. 381, wherein edges of interactions between other nodes are disclosed, also See paras. 222-223, 243, 411, wherein node resolution engine features on matching electronic activity to nodes and establishing edge between two nodes and mapping activities to record objects are disclosed, also See paras. 152, 172, 625, wherein creating new node profile for unknown entity in which “tagging engine 265 can tag the electronic activity as an out of office response but further allow the node profile manager 220 to update the node profile of the nodes to indicate the potential relationship between the person who is out of office and the second person to contact in their absence or create a new node profile for that person if such a node profile doesn't yet exist” [0172] are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
However, Rice fails to disclose a plurality of dynamic edges associated with the plurality of graph nodes, each dynamic edge representing at least one respective dynamic characteristic of at least one respective activity between at least one first graph node and at least one second graph node.
On the other hand, Beringer teaches a plurality of dynamic edges associated with the plurality of graph nodes, each dynamic edge representing at least one respective dynamic characteristic of at least one respective activity between at least one first graph node and at least one second graph node. (See Figs. 3-4, paras. 5, 26, 34-37, wherein dynamic graph, dynamic grouping of entities and representation of entities in which “company having access to the graph sells two products in the group and competing companies sell the remaining products. Since the semantic net contains the information that all those are companies, a common abstract relation 8 "is sold by some company" is created, which also characterizes the elements of the group” (analogous to dynamic characteristic) [0034] and “By grouping of entities with common relations 8 and displaying the group as one node 9 (represented as an ellipse rather than a box in FIGS. 3 and 4) in the graph, and by providing lines (analogous to edges) representing only the relations 8 that all nodes in the graph have in common, an efficient representation of the entities and an efficient use of the graph is achieved. Further, characteristics are used to identify common relations 8 in such a way that a good distribution of nodes 9 is achieved” [0035] are disclosed; as taught by Beringer.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Beringer teachings in the Rice system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for providing a visualization graph taught by Beringer in the Rice system for effectively updating field-value pairs of record objects using electronic activities. In addition, both of the references (Rice and Beringer) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as entity relationship models. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses merging, by the at least one processor, the plurality of dynamic edges into at least one merged dynamic edge between the at least one known entity and the at least one unknown entity. (See Figs. 1, 4, paras. 65-67, 70, wherein node graph with plurality of nodes and edges are disclosed, also See para. 381, wherein edges of interactions between other nodes are disclosed, also See paras. 222-223, 243, 411, wherein node resolution engine features on matching electronic activity to nodes and establishing edge between two nodes and mapping activities to record objects are disclosed, also See paras. 152, 172, 625, wherein creating new node profile for unknown entity are disclosed, also See paras. 223, 227, wherein merging of nodes are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 3 and 13, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses determining, by the at least one processor, an aggregate quantity associated with the plurality of dynamic edges based at least in part on an aggregation of each respective quantity of the at least one respective activity associated with the plurality of dynamic edges. (See Fig. 1, paras. 34, 70-73, 493, wherein process of aggregating electronic activities are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 4 and 14, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses determining, by the at least one processor, activity quantity characteristics associated with the at least one unknown entity based at least in part on the aggregate quantity in response to a graph query of the activity data structure for queried activity quantity characteristics from at least one user computing device associated with at least one user; (See paras. 101, 166, 493, wherein quantities and characteristics of electronic activities are disclosed, also See Figs. 1, 4, paras. 65-67, wherein node graph with plurality of nodes and edges are disclosed, also See Fig. 1, paras. 34, 70-73, 493, wherein process of aggregating electronic activities are disclosed, also See paras. 152, 172, 625, wherein creating new node profile for unknown entity in which “tagging engine 265 can tag the electronic activity as an out of office response but further allow the node profile manager 220 to update the node profile of the nodes to indicate the potential relationship between the person who is out of office and the second person to contact in their absence or create a new node profile for that person if such a node profile doesn't yet exist” [0172] are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
and generating, by the at least one processor, at least one entity specific data record associated with the at least one unknown entity to store the activity quantity characteristics of the at least one unknown entity. (See paras. 152, 172, 625, wherein creating new node profile for unknown entity in which “tagging engine 265 can tag the electronic activity as an out of office response but further allow the node profile manager 220 to update the node profile of the nodes to indicate the potential relationship between the person who is out of office and the second person to contact in their absence or create a new node profile for that person if such a node profile doesn't yet exist” [0172] are disclosed, also See paras. 482, 492, wherein node graph generation system functions are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses determining, by the at least one processor, an activity score for the plurality of dynamic edges based at least in part on an aggregate quantity associated with activity between each respective entity of each respective graph node. (See Fig. 1, paras. 34, 70-73, 493, wherein process of aggregating electronic activities are disclosed, also See Figs. 6A, paras. 107-108, 110, wherein confidence score and scoring process are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses wherein the activity comprises monetary transactions between two or more entities associated with two or more graph nodes. (See paras. 273, 777, wherein transactions between buyer/seller are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses receiving, by the at least one processor, the monetary transactions from business-to-business payments. (See paras. 273, 777, wherein transactions between buyer/seller are disclosed, also See para. 385, wherein payment systems are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses receiving, by the at least one processor, the monetary transactions from consumer purchases. (See paras. 273, 777, wherein transactions between buyer/seller are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses updating, by the at least one processor, the plurality of dynamic edges according to a predetermined period. (See paras. 28, 87, 241, wherein node graph generation system features on ingesting electronic activities on a periodic basis, such as daily, weekly, etc. and updating of record object based on relationships between nodes are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
As per claims 10 and 20, the combination of Rice and Beringer discloses wherein the predetermined period comprises one day. (See para. 87, wherein periodic basis, such as daily, weekly, monthly are disclosed; as taught by Rice.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Johnson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0246988) discloses executable graph framework for the management of complex system.
2) Fletcher et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0096499) discloses proactive monitoring tree providing pinned performance information associated with a selected node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights