DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response the communications filed on 12/30/2025 in which claims 1, 6 and 11 are amended, claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, and 14 have been canceled and therefore claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 are pending.
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 .
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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1, 3 and 5 recite a system. Claims 6, 8 and 10 recite a method. Claims 11, 13 and 15 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, claims 1, 3 and 5 are directed to a machine, claims 6, 8 and 10 are directed to a process, and claims 11, 13 and 15 are directed to a manufacture.
With respect to claims 1, 6 and 11:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
• in response to receiving an input data point, calculating distances from the input data point to each of the plurality of subspaces respectively (mental process – evaluation, or mathematical calculations)
• selecting a minimum distance from the distances corresponding to the plurality of subspaces to leave one or more remaining distances to provide a distance group comprising the one or more remaining distances, wherein the distance group does not comprise the minimum distance (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
• utilizing the distance group comprising the one or more remaining distances to normalize the minimum distance to obtain a normalized distance value (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
• detecting whether the normalized distance value is greater than a threshold value, so as to output a detection result (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
• wherein the detection result of the real-time application indicates that the input data point is an outlier in response to that the normalized distance value is greater than the threshold value (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
• wherein an operation of utilizing the one or more remaining distances to normalize the minimum distance to obtain the normalized distance value comprises: calculating an average of the one or more remaining distances; and (mental process – evaluation, or mathematical calculations) dividing the minimum distance by the average of the one or more remaining distances to equal a normalized distance ratio serving as the normalized distance value, wherein the threshold value is a threshold ratio (mental process – evaluation, or mathematical calculations)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
• (claim 1) a storage device configured to store at least one instruction and a data model of a plurality of subspaces; and a processor electrically connected to the storage device and configured to access and execute the at least one instruction for (claim 11) a plurality of instructions for commanding a computer to execute a method of outlier detection (mere instructions to apply an exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
• (claim 1) a storage device configured to store at least one instruction and a data model of a plurality of subspaces; and a processor electrically connected to the storage device and configured to access and execute the at least one instruction for (claim 11) a plurality of instructions for commanding a computer to execute a method of outlier detection (mere instructions to apply an exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
With respect to claims 3 and 8:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
• wherein the detection result indicates that the input data point is an inlier in response to that the normalized distance value is less than or equal to the threshold value (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
With respect to claims 5, 10 and 15:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
• utilizing columns of each of the respective data matrixes to span each of the subspaces correspondingly (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
• normalizing all of data points of the subspaces to be unit-norms (mental process – evaluation)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
• collecting data points from a plurality of classes of labeled training data respectively to generate respective data matrixes (insignificant extra-solution activity- see MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering)
• storing the data model of the subspaces in the storage device (insignificant extra-solution activity- see MPEP 2106.05(g), final step of storing data does not meaningfully limit the claim)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
• collecting data points from a plurality of classes of labeled training data respectively to generate respective data matrixes (insignificant extra-solution activity- see MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
• storing the data model of the subspaces in the storage device (insignificant extra-solution activity- see MPEP 2106.05(g), final step of storing data does not meaningfully limit the claim, and WURC: storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues: (p. 9-11) I. The Amended Claims are Directed to a Specific Improvement in Computer Capabilities, Not an Abstract Idea (Step 2A, Prong Two)… it employs a specific data manipulation technique: 1. Calculating distances to subspaces; 2. Selecting a minimum distance and explicitly excluding it to form a "distance group" of remaining distances; and 3. Utilizing this specific distance group (the remaining distances) to normalize the minimum distance… It is a specific method of organizing and processing data (i.e., the specific "min-exclusion" normalization structure)…
Examiner answers: The claim is directed to an abstract idea, which cannot provide the improvement and therefore cannot be a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two. - MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” (In light of Fig. 2 and [0025], for a data point P’, d1’ is a minimum distance and d2’ and d3’ are remaining distances, and utilizing d2′ and d3′ to normalize d1′ to obtain the normalized distance value.)
Applicant argues: (p. 11-12) II. The Claims Include Significantly More (Step 2B)… They recite a specific implementation: 1. A storage device storing a "data model of a plurality of subspaces";
2. A processor configured to execute the specific "min-exclusion" normalization logic "in response to receiving an input data point."
Examiner answers: The mere presence of a physical device (i.e., a storage device and a processor) does not preclude the claim from being considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, if the physical device is claimed in a generic manner. Because the claimed feature (a storage device and a processor) is a generic computer, it does not add significantly more in Step 2B. “For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B” – MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kao ("A robust fuzzy clustering method with outliers influence free" 20121116) teaches (Kao, p. 342, II. Related Works "The algorithm computes the distances between a data point and the cluster centers… d_ij is the distance between the ith cluster center ci and the jth data point...")
Kao further teaches on p. 343, C. Fuzzy C-means clustering method, the membership values u_ij is based on d_ij [a minimum distance]. However, d_kj where k = 1:c does not preclude d_ij, i.e. the remaining distances do not preclude the minimum distance in fuzzy C-means clustering method. On the contrary, the claim requires: remaining distances/the distance group does not comprise the minimum distance.
Kao further teaches on p. 343, III. The New Fuzzy Clustering Method, d_ij denotes as the distance between a point xj and a specific cluster ci [a minimum distance]. However, di_bar is based on the n-1 points' distance to ci, i.e. based on the distances from the other points, not the remaining distances from the input data point. (In light of the specification [0025] and drawing Fig. 2, the minimum distance is d1’. The claimed remaining distances are d2’ and d3’, not d1, d2 and d3 which correspond to di_bar in Kao’s teaching.)
Koupaie ("Outlier Detection in Stream Data by Clustering Method" 2013) teaches (Koupaie, p. 29, III. PROPOSED WORK "The algorithm that is proposed uses incremental k-means clustering because of stream data. At first stream data in a window with a specify size entered... One way (process1) is to find online outlier per time [a real-time application]... In procces1, it is clustered data in window with k-means algorithm and some cluster that is small or far from of other cluster introduce as an online outlier.")
Al-Zoubi ("New outlier detection method based on fuzzy clustering" 2010) teaches fuzzy clustering techniques.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU-TING CHUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5 PT.
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 (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146