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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 9/29/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17387090 has a total of 41 claims pending in the application, of which claim s1-20, 32, and 34 have been cancelled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-31, 33, and 35-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11106878 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of the instant claims can be met by those of the patent as shown below.
Instant Application
11106878 B2
Examiners Comment
“A method of identifying hypotheses in a corpus of data, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method of identifying hypotheses in a corpus of data, the method comprising:
Receiving an ontology by one or more computers, the ontology including a plurality of fields and a plurality of choices for each of the fields such that the ontology includes a plurality of ontology vectors that each include one choice for each of the fields of the ontology
Claim 1: receiving an ontology by one or more computers, wherein the ontology includes fields and a plurality of choices for each of the fields such that the ontology includes a plurality of ontology vectors, each ontology vector including one choice for each of the fields;
Receiving the corpus of data by the one or more computers
Claim 1: receiving the corpus of data by the one or more computers;
Populating the ontology by the one or more computers by detecting data in the corpus of data that corresponds to each of the ontology vectors
Claim 1: populating the ontology, by the one or more computers, by detecting data from the corpus of data that correspond to each of the ontology vectors;
Plotting the populated ontology vectors in an ontology space by the one or more computers, each dimension of the ontology space being associated with one or more of the fields of the ontology
Claim 1: plotting the populated ontology vectors in an ontology space by the one or more computers, each dimension of the ontology space being associated with one or more of the fields of the ontology;
Transforming the plotted ontology space into a hypothesis space, by the one or more computers, by Grouping the ontology vectors that describe similar and/or related concepts into neighborhoods, wherein each neighborhood represents a hypothesis
Claim 1: transforming the plotted ontology space into a hypothesis space, by the one or more computers, by grouping the plotted ontology vectors that describe similar and/or related concepts into neighborhoods, wherein each neighborhood represents a hypothesis;
Weighing each of the hypotheses by the one or more computers and
weighing each of the plotted hypotheses by the one or more computers
Applying an optimization algorithm by the one or more computers to rank the hypotheses in accordance with the weight of each hypothesis
Claim 1: applying an optimization algorithm to find the lowest troughs in the hypothesis surface or fittest population members in the population,
Identifying trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by:
Claim 7: wherein the optimization algorithm weighs each of the plotted hypotheses in part by: storing personalized criteria of a user; and filtering the plotted hypotheses to de-weight hypotheses that are trivial or uninteresting to the user.
Introducing a random variation or mutation into the hypothesis space representing the neighborhoods
Claim 10: wherein the optimization algorithm de-weights trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by: introducing a random variation or mutation into the hypothesis space; identifying a local minima in the varied or mutated hypothesis space; and determining an anticipation level of a hypothesis represented by a neighborhood at the local minima.
Determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of decent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors
Claim 10: wherein the optimization algorithm de-weights trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by: introducing a random variation or mutation into the hypothesis space; identifying a local minima in the varied or mutated hypothesis space; and determining an anticipation level of a hypothesis represented by a neighborhood at the local minima.
De-weighting the identified trial or uninteresting hypothesis
Claim 10: wherein the optimization algorithm de-weights trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by: introducing a random variation or mutation into the hypothesis space; identifying a local minima in the varied or mutated hypothesis space; and determining an anticipation level of a hypothesis represented by a neighborhood at the local minima.
As per claims 22-31, 33, and 35-41, these claims are similarly rejected under obvious-type double patenting with claims 1-16 of 11106878 B2.
Claims 21-31, 33, and 35-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10521727 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of the instant claims can be met by those of the patent as shown in claims 1-12.
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 21-31, 33, and 35-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 21 is a process type claim. Claim 41 is a machine type claim. Therefore, claims 21-31, 33, and 35-41 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
As per claim 21,
2A Prong 1:
“including a plurality of fields and a plurality of choices for each of the fields such that the ontology includes a plurality of ontology vectors that each include one choice for each of the fields of the ontology” A user, mentally or with pencil and paper, creates a vector with a set of fields that can be filled as needed.
“populating the ontology … by detecting data in the corpus of data that correspond to each of the ontology vectors” The User, mentally or with pencil and paper, tries to match incoming data to the set up ontology.
“Plotting the populated ontology vectors in an ontology space … each dimension of the ontology space being associated with one or more of the fields of the ontology” The user mentally or with pencil and paper plots the populated ontology.
“transforming the plotted ontology space into a hypothesis space .. by grouping the ontology vectors that describe similar and/or related concepts into neighborhoods wherein each neighborhood represents a hypothesis” The user mentally or with pencil and paper organizes the ontology vectors into “neighborhoods” based upon the topic/concepts found within.
“weighing each of the hypotheses” The user mentally or with pencil and paper applies weights to each of the hypotheses
“applying an … algorithm … rank the hypotheses in accordance with the weight of each hypothesis in the hypothesis space” The user mentally or with pencil and paper ranks the hypotheses.
“Identifying trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by:” The user mentally or with pencil and paper identifies trivial or uninteresting hypotheses in the ontology.
“introducing a random variable or mutation into the hypothesis space representing the neighborhoods” The user mentally or with pencil and paper mutates or adds random variables into the various neighborhoods by changing values at random.
“determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors” The user mentally or with pencil and papers measures the slope of descent or accent of local minimal and assigns an anticipation level.
“de-weighting the identified trial or uninteresting hypotheses” The user mentally or with pencil and paper de-weights the identified trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by changing them to nominal values or zero.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“one or more computers” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
“Optimization algorithm” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: This is a generic off the shelf optimization algorithm with no structure or details that make it beyond a common generic application of an optimization algorithm);
“Receiving an ontology …” , “Receiving the corpus of data” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“one or more computers” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
“Optimization algorithm” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: This is a generic off the shelf optimization algorithm with no structure or details that make it beyond a common generic application of an optimization algorithm).
“Receiving an ontology …” , “Receiving the corpus of data” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “transmitting or receiving data” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
As per claim 22, this claim has additional optimization details, but discloses no more than well-known types of algorithms, and therefore is rejected similarly to claim 21.
As per claim 23 and 30-31, 33 , 38, this claim contains additional generic machine learning algorithms like clustering and mental steps similar to claim 21, and is therefore rejected similarly to claim 21.
As per claim 24-29, 35-37, 39 , this claim contains additional mental steps and is rejected similarly to claim 21.
As per claim 40, this claim contains additional mental steps and receiving/transmitting steps as claim 21, and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 41,
2A Prong 1:
“the ontology including a plurality of fields and a plurality of choices for each of the fields such that the ontology includes a plurality of ontology vectors that each include one choice for each of the fields of the ontology,” The user, mentally or with pencil and paper, creates a vector with a set of fields that can be filled as needed.
“populates the ontology by detecting data in the corpus of data that corresponds to each of the ontology vectors ” The User, mentally or with pencil and paper, tries to match incoming data to the set up ontology.
“Plots the populated ontology vectors in an ontology space” The user mentally or with pencil and paper makes a plot of the ontology vectors.
“transforming the plotted ontology space into a hypothesis space by grouping the plotted ontology vectors that describe similar and/or related concepts into neighborhoods, wherein each neighborhood represents a hypothesis” The user mentally or with pencil and paper groups similar/related ontology vectors into “neighborhoods.”
“weighs each of the hypotheses” The user mentally or with pencil and paper applies weights to each of the hypotheses
“applies an … algorithm to rank the hypotheses in accordance with the weight of each hypotheses in the hypothesis space” The user mentally or with pencil and paper ranks the hypotheses.
“Identifying trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by:” The user mentally or with pencil and paper identifies trivial or uninteresting hypotheses in the ontology.
“introducing a random variable or mutation into the hypothesis space representing the neighborhoods” The user mentally or with pencil and paper mutates or adds random variables into the various neighborhoods by changing values at random.
“determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors” The user mentally or with pencil and papers measures the slope of descent or accent of local minimal and assigns an anticipation level.
“de-weighting the identified trial or uninteresting hypotheses” The user mentally or with pencil and paper deweights the identified trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by changing them to nominal values or zero.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“non-transitory computer readable storage media” , “a content server”, “one or more computers” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
“Optimization algorithm” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: This is a generic off the shelf optimization algorithm with no structure or details that make it beyond a common generic application of an optimization algorithm);
“Receiving an ontology …” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“non-transitory computer readable storage media” , “a content server”, “one or more computers” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
“Optimization algorithm” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: This is a generic off the shelf optimization algorithm with no structure or details that make it beyond a common generic application of an optimization algorithm).
“Receiving an ontology …” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “transmitting or receiving data” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-31, 33, and 35-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 21 and 41, these claims call for “grouping the ontology vectors that describe similar and/or related concepts into neighborhoods wherein each neighborhood represents a hypothesis.” There is no support in the specification for this limitation. There are two different types of groups in the specification, “groups” and “neighborhoods.” For the sake of argument, the Examiner will also use generic “groups” as potential support for the neighborhood term. Neither of these are described as relating to a single hypothesis, both are related to groups of hypothesis.
Groups are discussed in the following paragraphs and described as multiple hypotheses (Paragraph 007, 008, 073, 0102). There are no paragraphs relating a group of similar ontology vectors representing a single hypothesis.
Neighborhood also has no discussion of “neighborhoods” related to a single hypothesis.
Neighborhoods are discussed in the following paragraphs where it relates to multiple hypothesis. (Paragraphs 073, 075, 082-083, 095, 0102-0103, 0105).
The closest description is in paragraphs 082-083, but this references a single point as a hypothesis, and the neighborhood refers to hypothesis near that single point.
As can be seen, there is no support in the specification for groups or neighborhoods of similar or related ontology vectors representing a single hypothesis. Whether looking at groups or neighborhoods, all of these refer to groups of hypothesis, not single hypothesis. Since the specification lacks support for this limitation, the claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claims 22-31, 33, and 35-40, these claims are rejected for being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claims 21 and 41, these claims denote “identifying trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by: introducing a random variation or mutation into a hypothesis space representing the neighborhoods and determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors and de-weighting the identified trial or uninteresting hypothesis.” These limitations are not supported by the specification.
The basic concept of identifying trivial or uninteresting hypothesis IS supported by the specification. The only definition for these phrases are found in paragraph 0080, which states: “Here, ‘trivial’ and ‘un-interesting’ connote hypotheses that a user expects from the data, without the aid of the disclosed embodiments.” Trivial or uninteresting hypotheses are further discussed in paragraph 083 and 0103. However, there is no discussion of the remaining limitations in relation to trivial or uninteresting hypotheses.
The discussion of introducing a random variation or mutation into a hypothesis space is discussed only in paragraphs 078-079. Neither of these paragraphs have anything to do with determining whether a hypothesis is trivial or un-interesting. The closest is paragraph 0078, which discloses that the “hypothesis may be of limited value” but this does not state that they are trivial or un-interesting. Paragraph 079 discusses the mutation in relation to annealing processes, fitness functions, and anticipation levels, none of which are related to trivial or uninteresting hypothesis. Therefore the use of random variation and/or mutation for determining trivial or uninteresting hypotheses are not supported by the specification, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claims 22-31, 33, and 35-40, these claims are rejected for being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
The next limitation states that the trivial or uninteresting hypothesis are identified by “Determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors.” This limitation is also not supported by the specification in relation to determining trivial or uninteresting hypothesis. Anticipation is only discussed in paragraph 0079, and as discussed above, does not have anything to do with determining trivial or uninteresting hypothesis. Nor does the claim discuss anticipation level being determined based on a slope of decent or accent related to a local minima.
“Anticipated” things is further discussed in paragraphs 009 and 083, but these paragraphs do not discuss anticipation levels. The closest is paragraph 083, which discusses that for simulated annealing or other similar search algorithms, they should “determine if the neighborhood indicates anticipated or trivial hypotheses. If so, then that step is skipped….” There is no discussion of using random variation or anticipation levels to determine whether a hypothesis is trivial or uninteresting, let alone using slopes of descent or accent of local minima to make the determination.
The only time slope is discussed anywhere in the specification is paragraph 079, which is in relation to the fitness function of annealing or genetic processes, neither of which is related to determining trivial or uninteresting hypotheses. It also does not discuss determining anticipation levels based upon the slope of anything, let alone the slope of accent or decent of a local minima.
Therefore the use of anticipation level, slope, or local minima for determining trivial or uninteresting hypotheses are not supported by the specification, nor is the discussion of determining anticipation level based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
Finally, the claims call for “de-weighting the identified trial or uninteresting hypotheses.” This is also not supported by the specification. De-weighting is only described in paragraph 080 and 0103, where uninteresting neighborhoods or clusters can be de-weighted, not individual hypothesis.
As per claims 22-31, 33, and 35-40, these claims are rejected for being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 23, this claim calls for “Ranking the deepest troughs of a multi-dimensional surface having troughs that each represent a neighborhood of similar and/or related ontology vectors and each have a depth proportional to the weight of the hypothesis.” However the specification at no time discloses a multi-dimensional surface having troughs that each represent a neighborhood of similar and/or related ontology vectors. All discussions of troughs and the like are related to hypothesis, not ontology vectors.
Troughs are discussed in paragraph 012 in relation to hypothesis neighborhoods, paragraphs 075, 077, 094-095, and 0103 in relation to a surface in a hypothesis space. None of these paragraphs disclose troughs related to ontology vectors, and this causes the claim to contain new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C.112(a).
As per claim 23, this claim calls for “ranking the fittest population members of a population having population members that each represent a neighborhood of similar and/or related ontology vectors and each have a fitness proportional to the weight of the group of ontology vectors.” The specification has no support for these limitations. Fitness is only discussed six times in the specification.
Fitness is described in relation to mutations and in fitness of a population member in paragraph 079, but no discussion of ranking, grouping similar and/or related ontology vectors, ontology vectors at all, or fitness proportional to weights.
Fitness is discussed in paragraph 0103, fitness functions are used as a weighting function for genetic algorithms, but no discussion is made of ontology vectors, groups of similar/related ontology vectors, or the fitness being proportional to weights. This paragraph does discuss ranking based on population member fitness, but once again it is hypothesis, not ontology vectors. At best, this discloses using a genetic algorithm to apply weights, but provides no support for the remaining portions of this limitation, which causes the claim to be rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 35, this claim calls for “weighting the group of identified ontology vectors based on the personalized criteria of the user.” However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. There is no discussion in the specification of weighting groups of ontology vectors based on the personalized criteria of the user. At best, the specification discloses that “the hypothesis space can be organized based on personalized criteria” (paragraph 074) and that “the system is configured to select relevancy criteria to weighting all the hypotheses” but there is no discussion of weighting groups of ontology vectors, and therefore this claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claims 36-37, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 38, this claim calls for “wherein the hypotheses are ranked based on the path through the multi-dimensional space by which the group of ontology vectors representing each hypotheses was discovered by the optimization algorithm.” However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. There is no discussion in the specification of ranking hypotheses based on the path through the multi-dimensional space by which the group of ontology vectors representing each hypotheses was discovered by the optimization algorithm.” At best, the specification discloses ranking hypotheses based on the path they were discovered (see paragraph 046) but there is no discussion of ontology vectors in relation to paths, and therefore this claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 39, this claim calls for “wherein the hypotheses are ranked in a stateless manner based on the positions of the group of ontology vectors representing each hypothesis in the multiple dimensional space. .” However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. There is no discussion in the specification of ranking hypotheses in a stateless manner based on the positions of the group of ontology vectors representing each hypotheses in the multiple dimensional space. At best, the specification discloses ranking hypotheses in a stateless manner , (see paragraph 046) but there is no discussion of ontology vectors in relation to stateless data or positions of them in the multi-dimensional space. and therefore this claim is rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 21 and 41 and their respective dependent claims (22-31, 33, and 35-40) would be allowable over the prior art if the rejections under U.S.C. 101 are overcome, a terminal disclaimer is filed for the double patenting rejections, and the limitations rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) can be shown to be supported by the specification. No prior art will be applied to the claims, as the use of an anticipation level based on a slope of decent or accent of a local minima representing the group of ontology vectors in order to identify trivial or uninteresting hypothesis would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
In pg.12, the applicant argues in regards to the rejection under U.S.C. 101,
The claimed features cannot "practically" be performed using pencil and B. paper not merely because doing so would be "long" or "difficult" as alleged by the examiner, but because it would then be impossible to "apply[ I an optimization algorithm to rank the hypotheses in accordance with the weight of each hypothesis in the hypothesis space" and "identify[ and then de-weight] trivial or uninteresting hypotheses by: introducing a random variation or mutation into the hypothesis space representing the neighborhoods; and determining an anticipation level of each neighborhood of ontology vectors based on a slope of descent or accent of a local minima representing the neighborhood of ontology vectors" as further recited in the claims The pending Office Action argues that "the use of generic, off the shelf optimization algorithms is not enough to cause the claims to be significantly more than [an] abstract idea. In order to apply an optimization algorithm to rank the hypotheses, however, the claimed hypothesis space cannot be created using pencil and paper. Accordingly, those features are no longer an abstract idea.
In response, the Examiner maintains the rejection as shown above. Applicants arguments are that performing an optimization algorithm would somehow not be able to be performed in the human mind. First, the mental process steps of the claim does not include the optimization algorithm. The act of ranking hypothesis in accordance with weight can be performed in the human mind, as a human is able to look at weights and determine which are higher or lower than other weights and rank them accordingly. However, the use of an optimization algorithm to perform this function is dealt with in 2A/B of Prong 2, which states that the use of generic off the shelf algorithms such as the “optimization algorithm” described in claims 21 and 41 are no more than taking an abstract idea and using a generic computer system to apply it. As the Applicant has provided no detail about the “optimization algorithm” beyond named algorithms (claim 22), this amounts to no more than generic, off the shelf algorithms, and thus fails to cause the claims to be significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore the rejection is maintained as shown above.
Conclusion
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 BEN M RIFKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/BEN M RIFKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123