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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination in this application (17/672814) amended 04/24/2026, claiming priority and having an effective filing date of 2020-02-11.
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims
below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are
representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within
the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully
requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in
their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections were not found to be persuasive. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections were found to be persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections have been overcome and 35 U.S.C 101 rejections have been maintained.
35 U.S.C 101
Applicant’s response:
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. Even if it is assumed claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is patent eligible under prong two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim 1 recites "wherein the convex transformations comprise performing exponential growth on the initial weights and performing probability transformation on the initial weights obtained after the exponential growth to obtain a target probability, and updating an edge weight between nodes based on the target probability by using a sum of edge weights between the nodes. Therefore, Applicant submits claim 1 recites a practical application including a technological improvement that improves the identification accuracy. Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. Claim 1 is patent eligible of Step 2B of the Alice test. Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea. In particular, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
For at least these reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and similarly claims 16 and 20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies.”.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner does agree that performing convex transformations and obtaining weights are not mental processes, the Examiner finds that performing convex transformations are recitations of mathematical calculations. Additionally, the Examiner finds that adding more details to how the mathematical calculations are performed does not lend more to eligibility as eligibility must come from an additional element. The stated improvement from the Specification would need to be applied to an additional element to qualify in potentially becoming patent-eligible.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. In the instant case, as well as in the arguments and remarks, the improvement is stemming from the identifying diffusion-abnormal users from to-be-confirmed users based on relationships and this has been deemed to be a mental process by the Examiner.
Thus, applicant has not shown how any alleged technical improvement is reflected by any particular claim limitations, i.e. how the specific components or steps would realize the benefits of the alleged improvement. It would not be clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art how the particular limitations of the claims would bring about the alleged improvement even when considered in light of the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
a method for data identification, performed by a computing device, the method comprising — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a target user set from a plurality, the target user set comprising at least two users having one or more social relationships — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
performing convex transformations on the initial weights that are standardized to generate the values, the convex transformations magnifying a difference between the standardized weights — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP (a)(2) I. C.)
determining abnormal users in the target user set based on the default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a status of the target user set based on the abnormal users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
identifying a diffusion-abnormal user from to-be-confirmed users based on the one or more social relationships between the abnormal users and the to-be-confirmed users in the target user set based on the status of the target user set being abnormal, wherein the to-be-confirmed users comprise users in the target user set other than the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
wherein the convex transformations comprise performing exponential growth on the initial weights and performing probability transformation on the initial weights obtained after the exponential growth to obtain a target probability and updating an edge weight between nodes based on the target probability by using a sum of edge weights between the nodes — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP (a)(2) I. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
acquiring a default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “acquiring a default abnormal user” and “obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users” limitations were found to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 1. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the acquiring the default abnormal user and the determining the abnormal users in the target user set based on the default abnormal user comprises: matching the users in the target user set with the default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining, as the abnormal users in the target user set, users having a matching ratio reaching a matching threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining an anomaly concentration of the target user set according to the quantity of the abnormal users and the total quantity of the users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the status of the target user set as a normal state based on the anomaly concentration being less than a concentration threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the status of the target user set as abnormal based on the anomaly concentration being greater than or equal to the concentration threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the determining the status of the target user set based on the abnormal users comprises: acquiring a quantity of the abnormal users and acquiring a total quantity of the users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining a first feature distribution of the abnormal users according to the social behavior features in the user social behavior feature set, the first feature distribution representing a quantity of types of the social behavior features possessed by the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a second feature distribution of the users in the target user set according to the social behavior features in the user social behavior feature set, the second feature distribution representing a quantity of types of the social behavior features possessed by the users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a feature distribution difference between the abnormal users and the users in the target user set based on the first feature distribution and the second feature distribution — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the status of the target user set based on the feature distribution difference between the first feature distribution and the second feature distribution — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the determining the status of the target user set based on the abnormal users comprises: acquiring a user social behavior feature set, the user social behavior feature set comprising social behavior features of each user in a user group — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “wherein the determining the status of the target user set based on the abnormal users comprises: acquiring a user social behavior feature set, the user social behavior feature set comprising social behavior features of each user in a user group” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 4. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the determining the status of the target user set based on the feature distribution difference between the first feature distribution and the second feature distribution comprises: determining the status of the target user set as a normal state based on the feature distribution difference being less than a difference threshold and the first feature distribution being less than a distribution threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the status of the target user set as the normal state based on the feature distribution difference being greater than or equal to the difference threshold and the first feature distribution being greater than or equal to the distribution threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the status of the target user set as abnormal based on the feature distribution difference being greater than or equal to the difference threshold and the first feature distribution being less than the distribution threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the determining the target user set from the plurality of users comprises: dividing the plurality of users into at least two user sets based on collected social relationships and social behaviors among the plurality of users, such that a closeness of a social relationship among users in each user set is higher than a closeness of a social relationship among users in a different user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
selecting one of a plurality of user sets as the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the dividing the plurality of users into the plurality of user sets comprises: determining a relationship topology graph based on the one or more social relationships and the social behaviors among the plurality of users, wherein, in the relationship topology graph, each node corresponds to one of the plurality of users, and an edge connecting two nodes indicates that the users corresponding to two nodes have a social relationship — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a closeness of the one or more social relationships between two users based on the one or more social relationships and the social behaviors among the plurality of users, determining a weight of an edge between nodes corresponding to the two users based on the closeness of the one or more social relationships between the two users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
dividing the relationship topology graph into at least two topology sub-graphs by using a clustering algorithm, and selecting a set of users corresponding to nodes in one of the at least two topology sub-graphs as the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the dividing the relationship topology graph into the at least two topology sub-graphs by using the clustering algorithm comprises: acquiring a sampling path corresponding to a first node from the relationship topology graph based on a quantity of sampling paths — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining a jump probability between the first node and an association node in the sampling path based on an edge weight in the relationship topology graph, the association node being a node in the sampling path other than the first node — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
updating the relationship topology graph based on the jump probability to obtain an updated relationship topology graph, and dividing the updated relationship topology graph to obtain the at least two topology sub- graphs — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the determining the weight of the edge between the nodes corresponding to the users based on the closeness of the social relationship between the two users comprises: setting the closeness of the one or more social relationships between the two users as an initial weight of the edge between the two nodes corresponding to the two users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
performing probability transformation on the initial weight to obtain an edge weight — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
selecting, as a connection node pair, two nodes in the first node, the intermediate node, and the association node having an edge, acquiring an edge weight corresponding to the connection node pair — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining the jump probability between the first node — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the determining the jump probability between the first node and the association node in the sampling path based on the edge weight in the relationship topology graph comprises: acquiring an intermediate node between the first node and the association node from the sampling path in a case that there is no edge between the first node and the association node, the first node reaching the association node through the intermediate node — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “wherein the determining the jump probability between the first node and the association node in the sampling path based on the edge weight in the relationship topology graph comprises: acquiring an intermediate node between the first node and the association node from the sampling path in a case that there is no edge between the first node and the association node, the first node reaching the association node through the intermediate node” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 10. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the updating the relationship topology graph based on the jump probability comprises: updating a connected edge in the relationship topology graph based on the first node and the association node to obtain a transition relationship topology graph, the first node and the association node in the transition relationship topology graph being both connected with edges — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
setting the jump probability between the first node and the association node in the transition relationship topology graph as an edge weight between the first node and the association node to obtain the updated relationship topology graph — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining, as a vital association node of the first node, the association node having the updated edge weight greater than a weight threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
dividing a target relationship topology graph into the at least two topology sub-graphs based on the first node and the vital association node — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying the diffusion-abnormal user from the to-be- confirmed users based on the one or more social relationships between the abnormal users and the to-be- confirmed users in the target user set based on the status of the target user set being abnormal comprises: determining users having the one or more social relationships with the abnormal users from the to-be- confirmed users based on the status of the target user set being abnormal — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining, as the diffusion-abnormal user, the user having a social relationship with an abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying the diffusion-abnormal user from the to-be-confirmed users based on the social relationships between the abnormal users and the to-be-confirmed users in the target user set based on the status of the target user set being abnormal comprises: determining users having the one or more social relationships with the abnormal users from the to-be- confirmed users based on the status of the target user set being abnormal — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining, as a diffusion-abnormal node, an association user node having an edge weight with one of a number of abnormal user nodes greater than an association threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining, as a diffusion-abnormal node, an association user node having an edge with one of a number of abnormal user nodes greater than an association threshold, and determining a user corresponding to the diffusion-abnormal node as the diffusion-abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
acquiring abnormal nodes corresponding to the abnormal users, acquiring association user nodes corresponding to the users having the social relationship with the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “acquiring abnormal nodes corresponding to the abnormal users, acquiring association user nodes corresponding to the users having the social relationship with the abnormal users” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 14. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 15:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining the target user set as abnormal as a to-be-identified user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
acquiring sensitive source data — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
matching the key text data with the sensitive source data — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determining an anomaly category of the to-be-identified user set based on a matching result — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
acquiring user text data of users in the to-be-identified user set, and extracting key text data from the user text data — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “acquiring user text data of users in the to-be-identified user set, and extracting key text data from the user text data” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 15. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 16:
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
first determining code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a target user set from a plurality of users, the target user set comprising at least two users having one or more social relationships — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
performing convex transformations on the initial weights that are standardized to generate the values, the convex transformations magnifying a difference between the standardized weights — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.)
second determining code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a status of the target user set based on the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
first identifying code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify a diffusion- abnormal user from to-be-confirmed users based on social relationships between the abnormal users and the to-be-confirmed users in the target user set based on the status of the target user set being abnormal, wherein the to-be-confirmed users comprise users in the target user set other than the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
wherein the convex transformations comprise performing exponential growth on the initial weights and performing probability transformation on the initial weights obtained after the exponential growth to obtain a target probability and updating an edge weight between nodes based on the target probability by using a sum of edge weights between the nodes — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP (a)(2) I. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
a data identification apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
at least one processor configured to access said computer program code and operate as instructed by said computer program code, said computer program code including — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the one or more social relationships are represented by vales of a data structure that is generated by at least — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
first acquiring code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire a default abnormal user and determine abnormal users in the target user set based on the default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
where the to-be-confirmed users comprise users in the target user set other than the abnormal users — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “first acquiring code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire a default abnormal user and determine abnormal users in the target user set based on the default abnormal user” and “obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users” limitations were found to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 16. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 17:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 16 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
wherein the first acquiring code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: match the users in the target user set with the default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine, as the abnormal users in the target user set, users having a matching ratio reaching a matching threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 16 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determine an anomaly concentration of the target user set according to the quantity of the abnormal users and the total quantity of the users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine the status of the target user set as a normal state based on the anomaly concentration being less than a concentration threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine the status of the target user set as abnormal based on the anomaly concentration being greater than or equal to the concentration threshold — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the second determining code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: acquire a quantity of the abnormal users and acquiring a total quantity of the users in the target user set — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “wherein the second determining code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: acquire a quantity of the abnormal users and acquiring a total quantity of the users in the target user set” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 18. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 19:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 16 which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determine a first feature distribution of the abnormal users according to the social behavior features in the user social behavior feature set, the first feature distribution representing a quantity of types of the social behavior features possessed by the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine a feature distribution difference between the abnormal users and the users in the target user set based on the first feature distribution and the second feature distribution — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine the status of the target user set based on the feature distribution difference between the first feature distribution and the second feature distribution — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the second determining code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: acquire a user social behavior feature set, the user social behavior feature set comprising social behavior features of each user in a user group — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “wherein the second determining code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: acquire a user social behavior feature set, the user social behavior feature set comprising social behavior features of each user in a user group” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 19. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 20:
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (manufacture).
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
determine a target user set from a plurality of users, the target user set comprising at least two users having one or more social relationships — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
performing convex transformations on the initial weights that are standardized to generate the values, the convex transformations magnifying a difference between the standardized weights — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.)
determine a status of the target user set based on the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
identify a diffusion-abnormal user from to-be-confirmed users based on the one or more social relationships between the abnormal users and the to-be-confirmed users in the target user set based on the status of the target user set being abnormal, wherein the to-be-confirmed users comprise users in the target user set other than the abnormal users — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
determine abnormal users in the target users in the target user set based on the default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) III. C.).
wherein the convex transformations comprise performing exponential growth on the initial weights and performing probability transformation on the initial weights obtained after the exponential growth to obtain a target probability and updating an edge weight between nodes based on the target probability by using a sum of edge weights between the nodes — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP (a)(2) I. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a device, cause the at least one processor to — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
acquire a default abnormal user — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “acquire a default abnormal user ” and “obtaining initial weights based on interactions between the at least two users” limitations were found to be an insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 20. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US20120197834A1 — Panigraphy et al. — discloses relatedness of nodes in a graph and transition probabilities among them
US20140279737A1 — Horvitz et al. — discloses exponential growth and jump probabilities
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew A Bracero whose telephone number is (571)270-0592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at Monday - Friday 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET at
(571)270-7519. 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.
/ANDREW BRACERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2126 /DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights