IP Library Granted Patent US 12,566,739
Granted Patent B2
US 12,566,739 · App. 18/964,395 · Granted Mar 3, 2026

Automatic entity resolution with rules detection and generation system

Inventors: Olukayode Isaac Osesina (Waltham, MA); Taras P. Riopka (Concord, MA)
Assignee: AWARE, INC.
G06F16/215G06N5/048G06N20/00
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,566,739
App. No.
18/964,395
Granted
Mar 3, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Entity resolution (i.e., record linkage) involves the analysis/discovering of datasets that refer to the same real world entity. Analysis typically involves transformation and comparison of different fields of the dataset followed by the application of often domain/data specific logic for determining datasets that refer to the same real world entity (e.g., person). Consider, a bulk mailing of product catalogs to potential customers. Some individuals may have numerous public records that identify the individual differently. Illustratively, several records associated with Jane Doe at her current home address may exist: one record with her name listed as J. Doe, a second record as Jane H. Doe, a third record as Doe, Jane, and a fourth record as Jan Doe (a misspelling). Conceivably, the bulk mailing could unwittingly send multiple catalogs to Jane Doe at her current address, one for each name variation. The entity resolution process described herein can overcome such problems.

Claims (33)

1 . A challenging training sample selection method comprising:

consideration of record fields as independent;

selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a number of multiple labels/classes that record field values, and link feature value ambiguity;

proportional selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a level of the labels/classes that record field values, and link feature values ambiguity;

determining a contribution of each linkage feature to the training sample by each linkage feature's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of a linkage feature value within a linkage feature by the linkage feature value's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of value pairs associated with the same linkage feature by the value pair's relative level of ambiguity; and

use of the labels/classes that record field values from positive labels to improve the determination of one or more of: record field values, and link feature value ambiguity.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein one or more of: the level of ambiguity of the linkage feature, the linkage feature value-, and value pair are used to determine the contribution of samples to the training set.

3 . The method of claim 1 , where a process is used to determine the level of ambiguity of one or more of: the linkage feature, the linkage feature value, and value pair.

4 . A non-transitory computer readable information storage media having stored thereon instructions, that when executed by one or more processors perform a challenging training sample selection method comprising:

consideration of record fields as independent;

selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a number of multiple labels/classes that record field values, and link feature value ambiguity;

proportional selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a level of the labels/classes that record field values, and link feature values ambiguity;

determining a contribution of each linkage feature to the training sample by each linkage feature's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of a linkage feature value within a linkage feature by the linkage feature value's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of value pairs associated with the same linkage feature by the value pair's relative level of ambiguity; and

use of the labels/classes that record field values from positive labels to improve the determination of one or more of: record field values, and link feature value ambiguity.

5 . The media of claim 4 , wherein one or more of: the level of ambiguity of the linkage feature, the linkage feature value, and a value pair are used to determine the contribution of samples to the training set.

6 . The media of claim 4 , where any technique is used to determine one or more of: the level of ambiguity of the linkage feature, the linkage feature value and, a value pair.

7 . A challenging training sample selection system comprising:

a processor;

an I/O interface; and

storage, the storage having stored thereon instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause to be performed:

consideration of record fields as independent;

selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a number of multiple labels/classes that record field values, and link feature value ambiguity;

proportional selection of challenging training samples based on one or more of: a level of the labels/classes that record field values, and link feature values ambiguity;

determining a contribution of each linkage feature to the training sample by each linkage feature's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of a linkage feature value within a linkage feature by the linkage feature value's relative level of ambiguity;

determining a contribution of value pairs associated with the same linkage feature by the value pair's relative level of ambiguity; and

use of the labels/classes that record field values from positive labels to improve the determination of one or more of: record field values, and link feature value ambiguity.

8 . The system of claim 7 , wherein the level of ambiguity of the linkage feature, the linkage feature value, and a value pair are used to determine the contribution of samples to the training set.

9 . The system of claim 7 , where in any technique is used to determine the level of ambiguity of the linkage feature, the linkage feature value, and a value pair in any combination.

Continuity (5)
Continuation 18376200 · Oct 3, 2023
Continuation 17229995 · Apr 14, 2021
Division 15566983
Provisional Application 62181266 · Jun 18, 2015
Related Publication 20250094396A1 · Mar 20, 2025
References Cited (43)
US 6523019B1 · Borthwick · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 9516053B1 · Muddu et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 10127214B2 · Munro · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10997134B2 · Osesina et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11816078B2 · Osesina et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20030126102A1 · Borthwick · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20030154204A1 · Chen-Wright et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040181526A1 · Burdick et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050149522A1 · Cookson, Jr. et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20100005057A1 · Bayliss · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100014762A1 · Renders · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 20110071855A1 · Vadiveloo · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110106807A1 · Srihari et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110246501A1 · McMenamin et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120221508A1 · Chaturvedi et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130054598A1 · Caceres · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130191329A1 · Dozier et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130325881A1 · Deshpande et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140298460A1 · Xue · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140358829A1 · Hurwitz · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150161191A1 · Dozier et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160364427A1 · Wedgeworth, III · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180253494A1 · Bhardwaj et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190095174A1 · Trudel et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190361849A1 · Rogynskyy et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20240028571A1 · Osesina et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2011085360 · 2011 [cited by applicant]
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees and, where Applicable, Protest Fee for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Aug. 2, 2016. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Oct. 14, 2016. [cited by applicant]
Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Oct. 14, 2016. [cited by applicant]
Corrected International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Oct. 25, 2017. [cited by applicant]
Corrected Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Oct. 25, 2017. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2016/037513, mailed Dec. 28, 2017. [cited by applicant]
European Search Report for European Application No. 16812283.6, mailed Mar. 9, 2018. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for European Application No. 16812283.6, mailed May 17, 2019. [cited by applicant]
Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC for European Application No. 16812283.6, mailed Mar. 20, 2020. [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Restriction Requirement) for U.S. Appl. No. 16/566,983, mailed Jun. 24, 2020. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/566,983, mailed Sep. 24, 2020. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 16/566,983, mailed Jan. 15, 2021. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/229,995 mailed May 9, 2023. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 17/229,995 mailed Jul. 6, 2023. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/376,200 mailed Apr. 24, 2024. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/376,200 mailed Sep. 5, 2024. [cited by applicant]