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 have been submitted for examination.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No 10180969. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No 12373452. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDS reference Johnson et al (hereinafter Johnson) US Patent 20160004741.
As per claim 1, Johnson teaches:
A method of managing data relating to an entity, the method comprising:
identifying, by at least one device comprising a processor, an entity referenced by input data;
(Paragraphs [0004], [0016]-[0017], [0053], [0060]-[0062], [0064]-[0065])
generating, by the at least one device, a first record corresponding to the entity in a data structure;
(Fig. 1F, 15A-B and paragraphs [0094]-[0095])
populating, by the at least one device, the first record with one or more characteristics of the entity given in the input data;
(Fig. 1F, 15A-B and paragraphs [0097]-[0105])
comparing, by the at least one device, characteristics populated in the first record with respective characteristics populated in a plurality of respective other records of the data structure;
(Fig. 1F, 15A-B and paragraphs [0097]-[0105] and [0111])
and merging, by the at least one device, the first record with a second record in the data structure in response to a result of the comparing, resulting in a merged record.
(Fig. 16A-B and paragraphs [0111], [0152]-[0159], [0246], [0272] and [0332])
As per claim 9, Johnson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the entity is a person, and the characteristics of the entity comprise at least one of biographical information, employment information, or family information.
(Paragraphs [0258] and [0338])
As per claim 10, Johnson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the entity is an organization, and the characteristics of the entity comprise at least one of operating information, business information, membership information, or characteristics of one or more members of the organization.
(Paragraphs [0223], [0306] and [0330])
As per claim 11, Johnson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the merging comprises:
updating the second record with one or more characteristics from the first record, and discarding the first record.
(Paragraphs [0058] and [0263])
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
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, 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 2, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Manning et al (hereinafter Manning) US Publication No. 20170052958.
As per claim 2, Johnson does not explicitly teach or suggests calculating, by the at least one device, respective identity probabilities for the plurality of respective other records of the data structure based on the comparing, however in analogous art entity resolution, Manning teaches:
calculating, by the at least one device, respective identity probabilities for the plurality of respective other records of the data structure based on the comparing, the identity probabilities corresponding to probability of the entity corresponding to the first record being a same entity as respective entities corresponding to the respective other records of the data structure, wherein the merging comprises merging the first record with the second record in response to an identity probability for the second record being higher than a threshold.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0019], [0027], [0033], [0105] and [0149])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Johnson and Manning by incorporating the teaching of Manning into the method of Johnson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Manning into the system of Johnson for the purpose of optimizing weighting record matching and improving the accuracy of entity resolution.
As per claim 3, Johnson and Manning teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the merging further comprises including an identity probability for the second record in the merged record.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0019], [0027], [0033], [0105] and [0149])(Manning)
As per claim 4, Johnson and Manning teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the calculating comprises:
assigning respective reliability scores to respective ones of the characteristics populated in the first record;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0019], [0027], [0033], [0105] and [0149])(Manning)
and weighting the respective ones of the characteristics populated in the first record according to the respective reliability scores.
(Paragraphs [0008], [0019], [0022], [0026] and [0028])(Manning)
Claims 13-14 are system claims respectively corresponding to method claims 2 and 4 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 2 and 4.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 2 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Manning in view of Mungur et al (hereinafter Mungur) US Patent No. 9275125.
As per claim 5, Johnson and Manning do not explicitly teach assigning comprises assigning the respective reliability scores based on one or more of an age of the input data, a reliability of the input data, frequency of a corresponding characteristic appearing in the input data, or a type of the corresponding characteristic, however in analogous art of content management, Mungur teaches:
assigning comprises assigning the respective reliability scores based on one or more of an age of the input data, a reliability of the input data, frequency of a corresponding characteristic appearing in the input data, or a type of the corresponding characteristic.
(Abstract and Column 5, 1-27 and Column 8, 59-64 and Column 14, lines 3-32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Johnson and Manning by incorporating the teaching of Manning into the method of Johnson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Manning into the system of Johnson for the purpose of calculating reliability score and improving entity association.
Claims 6-8, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Barry Caceres (hereinafter Caceres) US Publication No. 20110047167.
As per claim 6, Johnson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the entity is a first entity and the populating comprises:
populating the first record with respective relationships between the first entity and at least one second entity,
(Fig. 1F, 15A-B and paragraphs [0097]-[0105])
Johnson does not explicitly teach computing respective strengths of the respective relationships, and populating the first record with the respective strengths, however in analogous art of content management, Caceres teaches:
computing respective strengths of the respective relationships, and populating the first record with the respective strengths.
(Abstract and Paragraphs [0009], [0012]-[0013] and [0050])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Johnson and Caceres by incorporating the teaching of Caceres into the method of Johnson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Caceres into the system of Johnson for the purpose of quantifying record matching and improving the accuracy of entity resolution.
As per claim 7, Johnson and Caceres teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the comparing comprises comparing the respective relationships and corresponding strengths populated in the first record with respective relationships and corresponding strengths populated in the respective other records of the data structure.
(Abstract and Paragraphs [0009], [0012]-[0013] and [0050])(Caceres)
As per claim 8, Johnson and Caceres teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the computing a strength of a relationship comprises computing the strength based on at least one of length of the relationship, mutual connections between parties to the relationship, nature of interactions between the parties to the relationship, or frequency of the relationship being referenced in the input data.
(Abstract and Paragraphs [0009], [0012]-[0013] and [0050])(Caceres)
Claims 15-17 are system claims respectively corresponding to method claims 6-8 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 6-8.
Claim 20 is non-transitory computer-readable claim corresponding to the combination of method claims 6-7 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 6-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights