Training a neural database for entity matching

The examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (a mental process or mathematical concept that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) without adding significantly more, which fails the §101 patent-eligibility test. Additionally, the examiner finds that even if the claims were eligible, they would be obvious under §103 in view of a combination of four to five prior patent publications (Miller, Noyes, Jackson, Tangari, and for claims 6 and 14, also Patel) that together teach or suggest the claimed neural-database entity-matching training method.

The applicant has three months from the mail date (extendable up to six months with fees) to respond. Typical options include filing arguments and amendments to overcome the rejections, requesting an examiner interview to discuss claim scope, filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with a substantive response if amendments or arguments alone won't suffice, or appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.