Ex Parte NG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13538926 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/538,926 06/29/2012 Po Cheung NG 24080.03US2 1027
25541 7590 09/27/2017
NEAL, GERBER, & EISENBERG
SUITE 1700
2 NORTH LASALLE STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60602
EXAMINER
CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2152
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
t williams @ ngelaw.com
ipusmail@ngelaw.com
tmcdonough @ ngelaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PO CHEUNG NG, JEFFREY CARSON, and
ERIC HASZLAKIEWICZ
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—12. Claims 13—20 have been withdrawn from consideration. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to matching of database records based
on the similarity between fields in the database records and fields in the
search queries, which includes receiving database records from a search
engine for further refinement, assigning matching strength points based on
comparisons of fields in the search query and fields in the database records,
rejecting records that do not meet predetermined qualifying criteria based on
the matching strength points, and merging remaining records based on the
similarity between fields of the remaining records. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for matching a plurality of database
records based on a search query, the plurality of database
records comprising data associated with a plurality of
consumers, using a processor, the method comprising:
receiving the search query and the plurality of database
records at the processor, wherein the search query comprises a
search field for identifying a subject consumer of the plurality
of consumers each of the plurality of database records
comprises a database field;
normalizing content of the search query and the plurality
of database records using the processor to convert and
standardize the content of the search query and the plurality of
database records into a normalized search query and a plurality
of normalized database records, based on a normalization rule,
wherein the normalized search query comprises a normalized
search field and each of the plurality of normalized database
records comprises a normalized database field;
comparing the normalized search field and the
normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized
database records using the processor, wherein comparing
comprises calculating a difference between a date of birth of
the normalized search field and a date of birth of the
2
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized
database records, using the processor;
assigning a matching strength metric associated with
each of the plurality of database records, based on the
calculated difference between the date of birth of the
normalized search field and the date of birth of the normalized
database field of each of the plurality of normalized database
records, using the processor; and
transmitting a subset of the plurality of database records
from the processor, wherein the subset meets qualifying criteria
that are based on the matching strength metric.
Claims 1, 5—7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stading (US 2008/0244429 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008),
Krishnan et al. (US 2009/0006075 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009), and
Goldenberg et al. (US 2009/0089630 Al, published Apr. 2, 2009).
Claims 2, 3, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stading, Krishnan, Goldenberg, and McPeake (US
2005/0084152 Al, published Apr. 21, 2005).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stading, Krishnan, Goldenberg, and Mehta et al. (US 2011/0173197 Al,
published July 14, 2011).1
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9-13) that the
combination of Stading, Krishnan, and Goldenberg would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations “receiving the
1 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
search query,” “wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference
between a date of birth of the normalized search field and a date of birth of
the normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database
records,” and “assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of
the plurality of database records, based on the calculated difference between
the date of birth of the normalized search field and the date of birth of the
normalized database field of each of the plurality of normalized database
records.”
The Examiner found that the system of Stading for searching
databases corresponds to the limitation “receiving the search query.” (Final
Act. 6.) The Examiner also found that the candidate selection process of
Goldenberg, in which attributes of new data records are compared to
existing data records, corresponds to the limitation “wherein comparing
comprises calculating a difference between a date of birth of the normalized
search field and a date of birth of the normalized database field of each of
the plurality of normalized database records.” {Id. at 9; see also Ans. 7—9.)
The Examiner further found that scores generated by a more detailed
comparison of Goldenberg, to determine if records should be linked,
correspond to the limitation “assigning a matching strength metric associated
with each of the plurality of database records, based on the calculated
difference between the date of birth of the normalized search field and the
date of birth of the normalized database field of each of the plurality of
normalized database records.” (Final Act. 9-10; see also Ans. 10-11.) We
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Stading relates to searching data sources. (11.) Figure 1 of Stading
illustrates a block diagram of system 100 to search data sources. (133.)
4
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
Stading explains that “a system is disclosed to search one or more data
sources” and “communicates with the [search] interface to receive a query
from the destination device.” (129.) Because the system of Stading for
searching databases receives queries from a destination device, Stading
teaches the limitation “receiving the search query.”
Goldenberg relates to “identifying data records that may contain
information about the same entity such that these data records may be
associated.” (13.) Figure 3 of Goldenberg illustrates a flow diagram for
comparing data records (129), including: (i) step 310, in which “a set of
data records may be pushed or pulled at Identity Hub 32 for evaluation”; (ii)
step 320, in which “the data records for comparison may be standardized”
(1 60); (iii) step 330, in which “a set of candidates may be selected from the
existing data records to compare to the new or incoming data record(s)”
(1 62); and (iv) step 340, in which “data records comprising these set(s) of
candidates may then undergo a more detailed comparison” (| 63). With
respect to step 330, Goldenberg explains that
[t]his candidate selection process (also referred to herein as
bucketing) may comprise a comparison of one or more attributes
of the new or incoming data records to the existing data records
to determine which of the existing new data records are similar
enough to the new data records to entail further comparison.
(1 62.) With respect to step 340, Goldenberg explains that a “detailed
comparison may entail comparing one or more of the set of attributes of one
record (e.g., an existing record) to the corresponding attribute in the other
record (e.g., the new or incoming record)” and that “[t]he scores for the set
of attributes may then be summed to generate an overall score which can
then be compared to a threshold to determine if the two records should be
linked.” (1 63.) In one example, Goldenberg explains that “buckets may be
5
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
defined for name (first, last, middle), birth date+last name, address, and
Social Security number.” (| 177.) Because Goldenberg explains that in
step 330 (i.e., the “bucketing” process) attributes of new or incoming data
records are compared to existing data records (162) and that a “bucket” can
be defined for birthdate (1177), Goldenberg teaches the limitation “wherein
comparing comprises calculating a difference between a date of birth of the
normalized search field and a date of birth of the normalized database field
of each of the plurality of normalized database records.” Furthermore,
because Goldenberg explains that in step 340, scores can be generated after
attributes of new or incoming data records are compared to existing data
records (1 63), Goldenberg teaches the limitation “assigning a matching
strength metric associated with each of the plurality of database records,
based on the calculated difference between the date of birth of the
normalized search field and the date of birth of the normalized database field
of each of the plurality of normalized database records.”
First, Appellants argue that “Goldenberg does not describe any details
of the bucketing functions and merely states that bucketing functions ‘can be
used for identifying bucketing data, which identify groups of shared
information’” in paragraph 177 and “[a]s such, there is no teaching or
suggestion that the bucketing functions of Goldenberg that compare
attributes include any type of calculation involving dates of birth.” (Br. 11.)
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Goldenberg explains that “buckets may
be defined for name (first, last, middle), birth date+last name, address, and
Social Security number.” (| 177.)
Second, Appellants argue that “[ojther references to a ‘score’ in
Goldenberg are only related to the use of the score for determining whether
6
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
to link records or for a score distribution, and are not related to how a score
is actually generated for an attribute” and “[a]s such, there is no teaching or
suggestion that the attribute score calculation of Goldenberg includes a
calculation involving dates of birth.” (Br. 12.) Again, Goldenberg explains
that buckets can be defined for name, birth date, address, and Social Security
number. (| 177.) Moreover, Figure 3 of Goldenberg illustrates that step
330, in which “bucketing” is performed, is followed by step 340, in which
scores are generated to determine if the two records should be linked.
Accordingly, step 340 of Goldenberg generates score based on “bucketing,”
which includes birthdate.
Last, Appellants argue that “the purpose of the methodology described
in Fig. 3 of Goldenberg is to identify new incoming data records that may be
linked to existing data records” but, “[tjhere is no search query involved in
the process 300 or steps 330 and 340 of Goldenberg.” (Br. 12 (emphases
omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Stading, rather than Goldenberg,
for teaching the limitation “receiving the search query.” (Final Act. 6.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Stading,
Krishnan, and Goldenberg would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitations “receiving the search query,”
“wherein comparing comprises calculating a difference between a date of
birth of the normalized search field and a date of birth of the normalized
database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records,” and
“assigning a matching strength metric associated with each of the plurality
of database records, based on the calculated difference between the date of
birth of the normalized search field and the date of birth of the normalized
database field of each of the plurality of normalized database records.”
7
Appeal 2017-005771
Application 13/538,926
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5—7 and 9—12 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5—7 and 9—12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8