Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 08/20/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting a genealogical record comprising non-family data corresponding to a first individual and a second individual;
determining a non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual based on analyzing the genealogical record;
generating a historical organization profile for a historical organization connecting the first individual and the second individual through the non-familial relationship, the historical organization profile comprising a data object defined at least in part by the non-family data
from the genealogical record; and
causing a graphical user interface to display the historical organization profile reflecting the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual.
With respect to step 1 of the SME test, the representative claim 1 is a method claim; thus, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.)
With respect to step 2A, prong 1 of the SME test, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Among the categories of abstract ideas recognized by courts, a mental process is a process that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. MPEP §2106 04( a)(2)(III).
The Examiner finds that the claimed determination of a non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual based on analyzing the genealogical record constitute observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions capable of performance in the human mind, and/or by a human with pencil and paper. For example, a person can analyze a collection of information about a person and records the result of his/her analyzes, e.g., a first person and a second person, who is not among the family members of the first person, were in the same historical organization, e.g., military unit.
With respect to step 2A, prong 2 of the SME test, representative claim 1 lacks additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because beyond the identified abstract idea, the claim recites additional element that are not indicative of integration into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d) include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine -see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Beyond the identified abstract idea, the claim recites the additional element “computer implemented” for detecting, determining, generating and displaying data. The Examiner determines this disclosure to be equivalent to disclosure that the recited abstract idea is to be implemented on a computer, a limitation considered not indicative of integration into a practical application and the limitations generating and displaying constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to step 2B of the SME test, representative claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation, beyond the identified judicial exception, that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, as contemplated in Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claimed “computer implemented” is disclosed at a high level of generality. The Examiner does not find that Applicant has established the presence of additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8 and 15 because generating a profile node is simply presenting the result of an observation by a human with pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8 and 15 because adding a label and information to a presented node is simply presenting the result of an observation by a human with pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8 and 15 because connecting nodes and indicating relationship is simply presenting the result of an observation by a human with pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8 and 15 because presenting a visual indication of non-family relationship is simply presenting the result of an observation by a human with pencil and paper.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 12,417,237 (App. No. 18/108,015). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant Application are broad versions of the claims in Patent No.: 12,417,237 (App. No. 18/108,015) as shown below for independent claim 1.
The features included in the claims of the instant Application but not included in the claims of Patent No.: 12,417,237 (App. No. 18/108,015) are rejected using prior arts as shown below.
App. No.: 19/304,977
Patent No.: 12,417,237
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of genealogical records, at least a subset of the plurality of genealogical records being historical records of deceased individuals;
normalizing the plurality of genealogical records into normalized genealogical records, normalizing the plurality of genealogical records comprising converting a text string of at least one of the plurality of genealogical records into a standardized format;
stitching the normalized genealogical records into a plurality of clusters, each cluster estimated to be corresponding to an individual and comprising one or more genealogical records associated with the individual, wherein stitching the normalized genealogical records into the plurality of clusters comprises:
generating tokens representing the plurality of clusters in a plurality of stitch runs;
generating identifiers for the plurality of clusters, the identifiers being unique across the plurality of stitch runs and being different from the tokens, wherein an identifier uniquely represents the individual; and
linking a first token corresponding to a first stitch run and a second token corresponding to a second stitch run to the identifier that uniquely represents the individual;
generating a stitched tree comprising nodes that represent tree individuals, the nodes being connected via edges specifying relationships among the tree individuals, wherein at least one node represents a tree individual that has a cluster of normalized genealogical records that are estimated to be belong to the individual;
detecting a genealogical record comprising non-family data corresponding to a first individual and a second individual;
determining a non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual based on analyzing the genealogical record;
detecting, utilizing a relationship generation engine to process a database of genealogical records, a life-event record that is commonly associated with a subset of clusters, the life-event record indicating that a set of deceased individuals are connected through a non-familial relationship in a life event documented by the life-event record;
adding, to the stitched tree, edges to the nodes representing the set of deceased individuals, the added edges representing that the set of deceased individuals are connected through the non-familial relationship in the life event;
generating a historical network among the set of deceased individuals that are connected through the non-familial relationship in the life event, the historical network comprising the edges added to the nodes representing the set of deceased individuals and comprising one or more genealogical records that are stitched as part of the subset of clusters;
generating a historical organization profile for a historical organization connecting the first individual and the second individual through the non-familial relationship, the historical organization profile comprising a data object defined at least in part by the non-family data
from the genealogical record; and
generating, within the historical network, a historical organization profile for a historical organization through which the non-familial relationship connects the set of deceased individuals; and
causing a graphical user interface to display the historical organization profile reflecting the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual.
causing a graphical user interface to display a representation of the historical network comprising the historical organization profile.
2-20
2-20
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 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. 102 that forms the basis for all 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, 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kennard et al., “Linking the Past: Discovering Historical Social Networks from Documents and Linking to a Genealogical Database” (hereinafter Kennard).
Claim 1. Kennard discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting a genealogical record comprising non-family data corresponding to a first individual and a second individual; (secs. 1.1-1.3, 4-4.1, 5.3, a genealogical record, e.g., “peoples’ names, dates and places of their important events (e.g., births, marriages, and deaths), and parent-child relationships to other people in the database (lineage links)” and associated non-family data, e.g., “transcribed portions of journals and autobiographies of the pioneers that discuss the journey with varying degrees of detail. The trail excerpts are cross-referenced so that they appear as sources for other pioneers they discuss, not just the pioneer that wrote the excerpt” are detected for linking people “who shared a common experience, such as crossing the ocean on the same ship, or crossing the country in the same pioneer company”)
determining a non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual based on analyzing the genealogical record; (secs. 1.2-1.3, 4-4.1, relationship/link between a first person and a second person is determined based on finding the name of the second person in transcribed portion of journal and autobiography of the first person: “The links between cross-referenced trail excerpts in the database implicitly form an HSN of connections found from the historical documents. These connections were discovered manually with great human effort by the database creators. Because of the large amount of time required to create these links manually, we investigate creating similar links automatically from the trail excerpts themselves”, “Through this process, connections are automatically made between the various journals’ authors and any persons mentioned within their texts”)
generating a historical organization profile for a historical organization connecting the first individual and the second individual through the non-familial relationship, the historical organization profile comprising a data object defined at least in part by the non-family data from the genealogical record; and (sec. 5.2, wherein a profile for a “pioneer company”, “ship voyage”, etc., is generated comprising relationship of the first person and the second person as historical social network: “we extract HSNs for a full pioneer company (Figure 5) and a ship voyage (Figure 6). In each case, the full HSN provides a high-level view of the entire group. At this level, it becomes clear which nodes represent the people who wrote about the most other people, or who was written about by many others”; sec. 5.3, “the HSN includes historical information gleaned not only from family relationships, but also from relationships with individuals who shared a common experience, such as crossing the ocean on the same ship, or crossing the country in the same pioneer company… an implicit history of an individual can be created even if they did not keep a personal record or journal. By simply linking them to individuals with whom they traveled, and knowing they shared a common experience, their history can be inferred by piecing together facts, names, places and dates, much like detective work”)
causing a graphical user interface to display the historical organization profile reflecting the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual. (sec. 5.2, Figs. 5-6, wherein a profile for a pioneer company or a ship voyage is generated for showing an associated historical social network: “we extract HSNs for a full pioneer company (Figure 5) and a ship voyage (Figure 6). In each case, the full HSN provides a high-level view of the entire group. At this level, it becomes clear which nodes represent the people who wrote about the most other people, or who was written about by many others”; sec. 5.3, “Because this is a family-linked database, ancestors and descendants of Joseph Young are also immediately available. Though not illustrated here, each of these relatives have links to their own HSNs which adds layer upon layer of historical information and insight into the lives of all who are related to them”)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the nonfamilial relationship comprises using a relationship generation engine to stitch together a first cluster of genealogical records representing the first individual and a second cluster of genealogical records representing the second individual based on processing the non-family data of the genealogical record. (Kennard, sec.1, wherein “The database stores peoples’ names, dates and places of their important events (e.g., births, marriages, and deaths), and parent-child relationships to other people in the database (lineage links). Each person in the database has at least one PersonID to uniquely identify them (Figure 2). If records have been combined due to duplicate information, “alternate” PersonIDs also refer to the same person” and sec. 1.2, wherein “The links between cross-referenced trail excerpts in the database implicitly form an HSN of connections found from the historical documents. These connections were discovered manually with great human effort by the database creators. Because of the large amount of time required to create these links manually, we investigate creating similar links automatically from the trail excerpts themselves” and sec. 5.3, wherein , “Because this is a family-linked database, ancestors and descendants of Joseph Young are also immediately available…each of these relatives have links to their own HSNs which adds layer upon layer of historical information and insight into the lives of all who are related to them” indicates that a first cluster representing a first name is stitch to a second cluster representing a second person related to the first person for showing historical relationship)
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as above.
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 2-5, 9-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kennard as applied to claims 1, 18, and 15 above, in view of Latif et al., “Visually Connecting Historical Figures Through Event Knowledge Graphs” (hereinafter Latif).
Claim 2. Kennard discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the historical organization profile comprises generating, from a subset of clusters of genealogical records comprising data associated with the historical organization, a profile for the historical organization profile. (secs. 4-5.3, wherein “Historical social network for a full pioneer company” as in fig. 5 or “Historical social network for a ship voyage” as in fig. 6 suggest that the social network is generated in association with generating a particular profile of a historical organization)
Kennard did not explicitly disclose but Latif discloses generating a profile node for the historical organization profile. (Latif, fig. 1, wherein a node for “FIFA World Cup 2014” is generated for illustrating relationship among participants)
The illustrated social graphs in Kennard figs. 5-6 implicitly taught the feature because they are shown with respect to a roster of a particular pioneer company or ship voyage. It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references for disclosing generation of a profile node for the historical organization profile because doing so would further increase useability of illustrated social graphs in Kennard by providing for a visual representation, e.g., a node representing the particular pioneer company or ship voyage and associated information to a user.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing the graphical user interface to display the historical organization profile comprises generating, for display on a client device, a visualization of the historical organization profile depicting a historical organization label and information relating to the historical organization. (Latif, fig. 1, wherein a node for “FIFA World Cup 2014” comprises label and additional information in response to a user interaction, sec. 3.2, “VisKonnect uses consistent colors and icons across all views to support quickly moving from one view to another. Furthermore, interactions link the views. For instance, hovering over an event in any of the view highlights related events in all other views. Users can click any event anywhere to pull up the related Wikipedia article in a dedicated panel (Fig. 1D). Besides, zooming and panning in the event timeline, event map, and relationship graph helps in exploring the details”)
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a historical social network comprising a set of nodes connected to the historical organization profile; and indicating, within the historical social network, the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual. (Kennard, Figs. 5-6, wherein shown social networks are connected to a particular historical organization profile; Latif, fig. 1, wherein a node represents “FIFA World Cup 2014” connected to related individuals)
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising causing the graphical user interface to display a visualization of the historical social network, the visualization comprising an interface element selectable to view the historical organization profile, wherein the set of nodes represent individuals with non-familial relationship with one another through the historical organization. (Kennard, Figs. 5-6, wherein shown social networks are connected to a particular historical organization profile; Latif, fig. 1, wherein a clickable node represents “FIFA World Cup 2014” connected to related individuals, sec. 3.2, “VisKonnect uses consistent colors and icons across all views to support quickly moving from one view to another. Furthermore, interactions link the views. For instance, hovering over an event in any of the view highlights related events in all other views. Users can click any event anywhere to pull up the related Wikipedia article in a dedicated panel (Fig. 1D). Besides, zooming and panning in the event timeline, event map, and relationship graph helps in exploring the details”)
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kennard as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, in view of SeungJin Lim, “Mining of Social Networks from Classic Books and Visualization” (hereinafter Lim).
Claim 6. Kennard taught the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the historical organization profile reflecting the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual is displayed. Kennard did not specifically disclose but Lim discloses providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a visual indication of the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual. (Lim, fig. 4, wherein family relationship is visually distinguished from non-family relationship)
Kennard implicitly disclosed the feature because the historical social graph is provided as a link to each of ancestors and descendants of a particular person so that family relationships can be viewed as well as “relationships with individuals who shared a common experience, such as crossing the ocean on the same ship, or crossing the country in the same pioneer company”. It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references for disclosing providing, for display in the graphical user interface, a visual indication of the non-familial relationship between the first individual and the second individual because doing so would explicitly provide a visualization as needed for differentiating type of relationships in a graph.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record in PTO-326 and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN ALMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-7722. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00 to 5:00.
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 (Al R) at http://www. us pto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/MOHSEN ALMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights