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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered.
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, 3-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“convert a dataset of unlabeled data points into a graph structure …wherein nodes of the graph structure represent the unlabeled data points in the dataset and weighted edges between a given node and one or more groups of other nodes represent similarity between the unlabeled data points represented by the nodes”
“compute a metric for each node of the graph structure, wherein a value generated by the metric for the given node represents a measure of connection to a number of the one or more groups of other nodes that meet a first threshold value, the first threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between the corresponding unlabeled data point of the given node and one or more other unlabeled data points of the one or more groups of other nodes that are connected to the given node”
“generate a modified dataset by …removing one or more unlabeled data points from the dataset based on one or more values of the computed metrics for the respective nodes of the graph structure meeting a second threshold value, the modified dataset comprising a representative subset of the dataset”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device coupled to at least one memory device, wherein the at least one memory device stores program code that is executed by the at least one processing device to: instantiate a data processing engine which operates to:”
“using a graph-based model”
“…automatically…”
“train a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point further comprises a bridgeness metric”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points further comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 6.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the coalitional game theory-based metric comprises a Shapley value approximation”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points prior to the converting the dataset of unlabeled data points into the graph structure”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the data processing engine further operates to…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, which is directed to a machine one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“removing one or more of any outliers and any incomplete data from the dataset of unlabeled data points”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the data processing engine operates to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points by…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“converting a dataset of unlabeled data points into a graph structure …wherein nodes of the graph structure represent the unlabeled data points in the dataset and weighted edges between a given node and one or more groups of other nodes represent similarity between the unlabeled data points represented by the nodes”
“computing a metric for each node of the graph structure, wherein a value generated by the metric for the given node represents a measure of connection to a number of the one or more groups of other nodes that meet a first threshold value, the first threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between the corresponding unlabeled data point of the given node and one or more other unlabeled data points of the one or more groups of other nodes that are connected to the given node”
“generating a modified dataset by …removing one or more unlabeled data points from the dataset based on one or more values of the computed metrics for the respective nodes of the graph structure meeting a second threshold value, the modified dataset comprising a representative subset of the dataset”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“executing program code by at least one processor device to: instantiate a data processing engine which operates to perform a process which comprises”
“using a graph-based model”
“…automatically…”
“training a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 12.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point further comprises a bridgeness metric”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points further comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the coalitional game theory-based metric comprises a Shapley value approximation”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product comprising a processor-readable storage medium having encoded therein executable code of one or more software programs, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“converting a dataset of unlabeled data points into a graph structure …wherein nodes of the graph structure represent the unlabeled data points in the dataset and weighted edges between a given node and one or more groups of other nodes represent similarity between the unlabeled data points represented by the nodes”
“computing a metric for each node of the graph structure, wherein a value generated by the metric for the given node represents a measure of connection to a number of the one or more groups of other nodes that meet a first threshold value, the first threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between the corresponding unlabeled data point of the given node and one or more other unlabeled data points of the one or more groups of other nodes that are connected to the given node”
“generating a modified dataset by …removing one or more unlabeled data points from the dataset based on one or more values of the computed metrics for the respective nodes of the graph structure meeting a second threshold value, the modified dataset comprising a representative subset of the dataset”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“A computer program product comprising a processor-readable storage medium having encoded therein executable code of one or more software programs, wherein the one or more software programs when executed by the one or more processors implement steps of: instantiating a data processing engine which operates to perform a process which comprises:”
“using a graph-based model”
“…automatically…”
“training a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a computer program product comprising a processor-readable storage medium having encoded therein executable code of one or more software programs, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product comprising a processor-readable storage medium having encoded therein executable code of one or more software programs, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“pre-processing the dataset of unlabeled data points prior to converting the dataset of unlabeled data points into the graph structure”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the data processing engine further operates to perform a method for…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein pre-processing the dataset of unlabeled data points comprises removing one or more of any outliers and any incomplete data from the dataset of unlabeled data points”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 21.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a computer program product comprising a processor-readable storage medium having encoded therein executable code of one or more software programs, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points further comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitik et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0081986) (“Sitik”) in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.2020/0167690) (“Zhao”).
Regarding claim 1, Sitik teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device coupled to at least one memory device (Sitik [0013] “The disclosed embodiments may also be implemented as instructions carried by or stored on one or more transitory or non-transitory machine-readable (e.g., computer-readable) storage media, which may be read and executed by one or more processors.” Sitik provides a processor coupled to a memory.), wherein the at least one memory device stores program code that is executed by the at least one processing device to: instantiate a data processing engine (Sitik [0013] “The disclosed embodiments may also be implemented as instructions carried by or stored on one or more transitory or non-transitory machine-readable (e.g., computer-readable) storage media, which may be read and executed by one or more processors.” Sitik provides using a processor corresponding to instantiate a data processing engine.) which operates to: convert a dataset of unlabeled data points into a graph structure using a graph-based model (Sitik [0023] “The graph constructor 202 is configured to construct a graph 212. The graph 212 includes multiple graph vertices, and each graph vertex corresponds to a data point of a data set 210.” Sitik provides constructing a graph from unlabeled dataset 210, corresponding to convert a dataset of unlabeled data points into a graph structure using a graph-based model.), wherein nodes of the graph structure represent the unlabeled data points in the dataset and weighted edges between a given node and one or more groups of other nodes represent similarity between the unlabeled data points represented by the nodes (Sitik [0023] “The graph constructor 202 is configured to construct a graph 212. The graph 212 includes multiple graph vertices, and each graph vertex corresponds to a data point of a data set 210. The graph constructor 202 is further configured to insert an edge in the graph 212 between each pair of graph vertices having a similarity metric with a predetermined relationship to a predetermined threshold similarity metric. The predetermined relationship may be, for example, greater than, greater than or equal to, less than, or any other appropriate relationship.” Sitik provides the nodes of the graph vertex representing the unlabeled data points of data set 210 and the edges between each node representing similarity between nodes.); compute a metric for each node of the graph structure (Sitik [0024] “The similarity analyzer 204 is configured to determine the similarity metric between each pair of graph vertices. The similarity metric may be embodied as, for example, a correlation coefficient between each pair of graph vertices, a Euclidean distance between each pair of graph vertices, or other measure of similarity. The edges may be inserted in the graph 212 in response to determining the similarity metric.” Sitik provides computing similarities for each node corresponding to computing a metric for each node of the graph structure.), wherein a value generated by the metric for the given node represents a measure of connection to a number of the one or more groups of other nodes that meet a first threshold value (Sitik [0027] “In block 304, the computing device 100 defines a similarity metric threshold. The similarity metric threshold defines a value of the similarity metric that may be used to determine whether a pair of data points in the data set 210 are considered as similar. For example, in some embodiments, the similarity metric threshold may be defined as a correlation coefficient equal to 0.95.” Sitik provides a threshold value for the similarity metrics between nodes using edges, corresponding to the metric for the given node represents a measure of connection to a number of the one or more groups of other nodes that meet a first threshold value.), the first threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between the corresponding unlabeled data point of the given node and one or more other unlabeled data points of the one or more groups of other nodes that are connected to the given node (Sitik [0027] “The computing device 100 may select any similarity metric that may be used to determine the degree of similarity between data points in the data set 210. For example, the similarity metric may be embodied as a correlation coefficient, a Euclidean distance value, or other metric. In block 304, the computing device 100 defines a similarity metric threshold. The similarity metric threshold defines a value of the similarity metric that may be used to determine whether a pair of data points in the data set 210 are considered as similar. For example, in some embodiments, the similarity metric threshold may be defined as a correlation coefficient equal to 0.95.” Sitik provides a threshold value indicating a measure of similarity, which is being interpreted as dissimilarity, between data points of given nodes and other data points of other given nodes, corresponding to the first threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between the corresponding unlabeled data point of the given node and one or more other unlabeled data points of the one or more groups of other nodes that are connected to the given node.); and generate a modified dataset by automatically removing one or more unlabeled data points from the dataset based on one or more values of the computed metrics for the respective nodes of the graph structure meeting a second threshold value (Sitik [0031] “Referring back to block 324, if the subset of selected vertices covers the entire graph 212, the method 300 advances to block 328. In block 328, the computing device 100 outputs the selected vertices as the representative cluster and the non-selected vertices as the residual cluster.”; [0036] “Referring now to FIG. 6, diagram 600 shows several plots illustrating the effects of varying the similarity metric threshold. In the illustrative embodiment, the similarity metric is a correlation coefficient, and the similarity metric threshold is varied through a range from 0.94 to 0.955. As shown, varying the similarity metric threshold may allow for adjusting a trade-off between a training set size (i.e., a representative cluster size) and clustering accuracy. Adjusting the similarity metric threshold may be used to adjust a model to target higher accuracy in exchange for a larger training set (or vice versa).” Sitik provides creating a training data subset by using a threshold range, which includes a first and second threshold value for selecting data points for a training subdata subset to accordingly adjust and reduce the size of the dataset by creating a representative and residual cluster of the data, which includes creating a subset of the data by removing one or more data points automatically when a value falls within a threshold.), the modified dataset comprising a representative subset of the dataset (Sitik [0031] “Referring back to block 324, if the subset of selected vertices covers the entire graph 212, the method 300 advances to block 328. In block 328, the computing device 100 outputs the selected vertices as the representative cluster and the non-selected vertices as the residual cluster.” Sitik provides representative subsets of the dataset based on the similarity metrics and through clustering, corresponding to the modified dataset comprising a representative subset of the dataset.);
Sitik fails to explicitly teach and train a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks.
However, Zhao teaches train a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks (Zhao [0072] “In alternate implementations, block 1006 is performed independently of training the machine learning model, and in such implementations the reduced dimension dataset is used as an input to the training process for the machine learning model… Further, a plurality of machine learning models may be trained concurrently, such as to train a supervised model corresponding to a first supervised task and an unsupervised model corresponding to a second unsupervised task.” Zhao provides training unsupervised machine learning models using a reduced dataset to perform a second unsupervised task, corresponding to train a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which processes the modified dataset to train the machine learning model to perform one or more machine learning tasks.).
Sitik and Zhao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically training dataset reduction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik with the above teachings of Zhao. Doing so would allow for accurate feature information to be retained while reducing the number of dimensions calculated, thereby increasing accuracy of results as well as reducing computational complexity and resource usage (Zhao [0007] “The equidistant embedding allows accurate feature information to be retained while reducing the number of dimensions calculated, thereby increasing accuracy of results as well as reducing computational complexity and resource usage.”).
Regarding claim 3, Sitik in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point (Sitik [0023] “The graph 212 includes multiple graph vertices, and each graph vertex corresponds to a data point of a data set 210. The graph constructor 202 is further configured to insert an edge in the graph 212 between each pair of graph vertices having a similarity metric with a predetermined relationship to a predetermined threshold similarity metric. The predetermined relationship may be, for example, greater than, greater than or equal to, less than, or any other appropriate relationship.” Sitik provides nodes corresponding to different/distinct/diverse unlabeled data points, wherein a similarity metric is used an edge/connection between nodes, corresponding to the metric comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sitik in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point further comprises a bridgeness metric (Sitik [0024] “The similarity analyzer 204 is configured to determine the similarity metric between each pair of graph vertices. The similarity metric may be embodied as, for example, a correlation coefficient between each pair of graph vertices, a Euclidean distance between each pair of graph vertices, or other measure of similarity. The edges may be inserted in the graph 212 in response to determining the similarity metric.” Sitik provides a similarity metric for connections between nodes that represent unlabeled data points corresponding to the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a neighboring node corresponding to a diverse data point comprises a bridgeness metric.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Sitik in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metric further comprises a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points (Sitik [0025] “The coverage set finder 206 is configured to initialize a cutoff node degree as a lowest node degree of the graph vertices of the graph 212 and select a test subset of graph vertices from the graph 212 that each have a node degree that is less than or equal to the cutoff node degree. The node degree associated with each graph vertex corresponds to a number of edges that connect to the associated graph vertex.” Sitik provides a node degree associated with each graph vertex that corresponds to a number of edges that connect to an associated graph vertex/node corresponding to a measure of an extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it is the method embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6-7, 15-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitik et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0081986) (“Sitik”) in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.2020/0167690) (“Zhao”) in further view of Saeed et al. (Unstructured Text Documents Summarization With Multi-Stage Clustering) (“Saeed”).
Regarding claim 6, Sitik in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric.
However, Saeed teaches wherein the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric (Saeed Section V., D. Connecting Sub-Corpuses by Dense Graph “Figure 11 represents this matrix by an adjacency graph to show the connected nodes of sub-corpuses by weighted paths. This graph provides path selection during corpus processing. Each row in Table 4 depicts a cluster’s relation to another cluster, and vice versa. AM of each SC presents a complete mapping of clusters”; Section V., G. Shap Explanation “We carried out this task by predicting, computing, and assessing the proposed model’s basic feature’s contributions. The SHAP method performs the explanation by computing the estimation values. These estimation values are Shapley values, which we have computed from the coalitional game theory” Saeed provides clustering of unstructured/unlabeled data using a coalitional game theory based metric, corresponding to the measure of the extent to which a given node corresponding to an unlabeled data point connects to a collection of neighboring nodes respectively corresponding to diverse data points comprises a coalitional game theory-based metric.).
Sitik, Zhao and Saeed are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically representations of unlabeled data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao with the above teachings of Saeed. Doing so would provide an improved text processing mechanism (Saeed Abstract “We used the SHAP model to evaluate the proposed technique, and our evaluation results proved that the proposed mechanism improved text processing.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Saeed teaches the apparatus of claim 6 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the coalitional game theory-based metric comprises a Shapley value approximation (Saeed Section V., G. Shap Explanation “We carried out this task by predicting, computing, and assessing the proposed model’s basic feature’s contributions. The SHAP method performs the explanation by computing the estimation values. These estimation values are Shapley values, which we have computed from the coalitional game theory” Saeed provides the coalitional game theory-based metric comprises a Shapley value approximation.).
Sitik, Zhao and Saeed are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically representations of unlabeled data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Saeed with the above teachings of Saeed. Doing so would provide an improved text processing mechanism (Saeed Abstract “We used the SHAP model to evaluate the proposed technique, and our evaluation results proved that the proposed mechanism improved text processing.”).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Saeed for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Saeed for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Saeed for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 8-9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitik et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0081986) (“Sitik”) in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.2020/0167690) (“Zhao”) in further view of Jung (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0401470) (“Jung”).
Regarding claim 8, Sitik in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points prior to the conversion to the graph structure.
However, Jung teaches wherein the data processing engine further operates to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points prior to converting the dataset of unlabeled data points into the graph structure (Jung [0032] “The system then selects only relevant sensor data for further processing. Specifically, the system transforms the pre-processed sensor data into a compact and informative data representation.”; [0034] “Data pre-processing module 214 can further include a data retrieval module 206, a data standardization module 208, an outlier detection module 210, and a data interpolation module 212.”; [0041] “Outlier detection module 210 can classify each attribute into one of three general value types, i.e., continuous, discrete, and constant value. Outlier detection module 210 then analyzes patterns of the column vectors. If an attribute remains constant across all global reference time intervals, then these constant-type attributes may not be included for further analysis, as they may not generate any possible result in the root cause analysis workflow.”; [0055] “Each of the graphical structures can include: a set of nodes with each node corresponding to attributes associated with a sensor; and a set of directed edges between nodes.”; [0072] “FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary apparatus that facilitates an unsupervised anomaly-detection system, according to one embodiment of the present invention.” Jung provides data pre-processing including a determination of outliers and not including said outlier for further analysis including the use of graphical structures for unsupervised learning, corresponding to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points prior to the conversion to the graph structure.).
Sitik, Zhao, and Jung are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically using graph structures in unsupervised learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao with the above teachings of Jung. Doing so would allow for the use of only relevant data for further processing to create informative data representations (Jung [0032] “The system then selects only relevant sensor data for further processing. Specifically, the system transforms the pre-processed sensor data into a compact and informative data representation.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Jung teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the data processing engine operates to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points by removing one or more of any outliers and any incomplete data from the dataset of unlabeled data points (Jung [0041] “Outlier detection module 210 can classify each attribute into one of three general value types, i.e., continuous, discrete, and constant value. Outlier detection module 210 then analyzes patterns of the column vectors. If an attribute remains constant across all global reference time intervals, then these constant-type attributes may not be included for further analysis, as they may not generate any possible result in the root cause analysis workflow.” Jung provides removing outliers from further processing including the use of various modules, corresponding to the data processing engine operates to pre-process the dataset of unlabeled data points by removing one or more of any outliers and any incomplete data from the dataset of unlabeled data points.).
Sitik, Zhao, and Jung are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically using graph structures in unsupervised learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Jung with the above teachings of Jung. Doing so would allow for the use of only relevant data for further processing to create informative data representations (Jung [0032] “The system then selects only relevant sensor data for further processing. Specifically, the system transforms the pre-processed sensor data into a compact and informative data representation.”).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Jung for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sitik in view of Zhao in further view of Jung for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that a person cannot practically mentally perform operations such as executing program code to instantiate a data processing engine, or train a machine learning model using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm (“Remarks”, Page 10).
However, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the “instantiate a data processing engine” limitation and “training a machine learning model…” limitation are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. For example, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims above, the “data processing engine” and “training” limitations are additional elements which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant firstly asserts Sitik does not disclose “computing a metric for each node of the graph structure…”, including a threshold value indicating a measure of dissimilarity between nodes (“Remarks”, Page 11). Applicant further asserts Sitik discloses using already existing values of data points to determine similarities between data points, and does not specifically disclose “unlabeled data points” and therefore does not teach unlabeled data (“Remarks”, Page 11).
However, as discussed in paragraph [0032] of Sitik, FIG. 4 provides a matrix of similarity values which may be calculated for data set 210. Further, the illustrative data set 210 includes six data points, numbered 0 through 5, which are identifiers for the data points in the data set. However, the six data points are not tagged with meaningful labels or annotations, or identifying specific characteristics of the data. Rather, the data points are only organized by their similarity through clustering, and not through previous classification or labels. Therefore, the data points of data set 210 of Sitik are “unlabeled data”. Therefore, Sitik teaches an “unlabeled” data set. Further, as discussed in [0027], Sitik provides similarity metrics between nodes representing the unlabeled data points, which is being interpreted as a measure of dissimilarity. Therefore, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above, Sitik teaches the limitations, as written.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125