DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination
This office action is in response to submission of application on 14-APRIL-2022.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-NOVEMBER -2025 in response to the non-final office action mailed 11-JUNE-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
With regards to the objection of claim 1, the applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has fixed the issue of the objection and as such it has been removed.
With regards to the 101 rejection, the rejection to claim 1 has not been overcome by the applicant’s amendments. Despite applicant’s amendments, claim 1 still remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the basis of being a mathematical concept.
With regards to the 103 rejections, the applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the rejections to claims 1-20 as the former prior art sufficiently teaches the newly added limitations of the amended claims.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method for identifying manifolds. A device is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined
that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components:
b) converting the real, continuous numbers to corresponding discrete data representations; (the method will convert the real numbers to discrete data through a mathematical relation and therefore is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
b.1) ordering, in numeric order, the continuous numbers, thereby producing an ordered list; (One can mentally process the ordering of numbers to form a list as a process of simply evaluating the data and making a judgement on the evaluated data. )
b.3) identifying two adjacent buckets/bins, j'h and (+1)'h in the ordered list where the difference between a mean of the terms in the jth bucket/bin and that in the (0+1)'h is the smallest; (One can mentally identify groupings of lists as a process of simply evaluating the mean and making a judgement on the evaluated mean. )
b.5) calculating information loss due to the combining of the two adj acent buckets/bins; (the method will calculate the loss through a mathematical formula and therefore is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
d) identifying the statistically significant association patterns of the discrete data representation, thereby producing identified statistically significant association patterns; (One can mentally identify patterns as a process of simply evaluating the data and making a judgement on the evaluated data. )
e) defining disjoint clusters such that each disjoint cluster has one and only one statistically significant association pattern; (The method defines the clusters through a relation between the cluster and a mathematical pattern, thereby creating a mathematical relation. Therefore, it is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
f) assigning each real, continuous number to a disjoint cluster based on evaluation of a membership function of its corresponding discrete data representation against the identified statistically significant association patterns, thereby producing assigned disjoint clusters, wherein the membership function is:
PNG
media_image1.png
79
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(The method assigns a number based on a mathematical function and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
g.2) calculating an error resulting from reconstructing the covariance matrix from a low dimension of an embedded space obtained from projecting the continuous data representations onto a space of the respective cluster; (The method calculates an error through a mathematical function and is therefore considered a mathematical concept. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
PNG
media_image2.png
15
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2) at q iteration and g.2) until the error is minimized, thereby producing a manifold cluster; (The method repeats the steps of mathematical concepts and thereby embodies the concepts. Therefore, it is a mathematical concept. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
wherein the message is tailored to the manifold cluster that corresponds to the target individual. (One can mentally tailor a message based on a dataset as a process of simply evaluating the data and making a judgement on the evaluated data. )
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls
within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that
the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A method for identifying a manifold cluster with statistically significant association patterns, the method comprising steps of: (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))
a) receiving a data set of real, continuous numbers of n-dimensions for each individual of a plurality of individuals; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))
b.2) creating a bucket/bin for each term in the ordered list; (In step 2A prong 2, creating a bin is a mere application of a computer tool (M.L. algorithm), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In step 2B, merely applying a computer tool is not indicative of significantly more.)
b.4) combining the two adjacent buckets/bins into one combined bucket/bin and calculating a mean ofj'h and 0+1)'h in the combined bucket/bin, thereby producing a combined, ordered list of terms; (In step 2A prong 2, combining two bins is a mere application of a computer tool (M.L. algorithm), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In step 2B, merely applying a computer tool is not indicative of significantly more.)
g) for each cluster with more than one discrete data representation, defining a subspace for an assigned disjoin cluster by: (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))
g.1) obtaining a number (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))
h) delivering, by a PBX messaging system, a message to a target individual on a mobile computing device (In step 2A prong 2, delivering a message is a mere application of a computer tool (messaging system), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In step 2B, merely applying a computer tool is not indicative of significantly more.)
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration
into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional elements (x) and (xiv) recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, (xi) and (xv) recites adding insignificant extra-solution activity, and (xii), (xiii), and (xvi) recites a mere application of a computer tool, which is not indicative of significantly more. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein after step g) the method further comprising (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) i) merging at least two of the clusters; (In step 2A prong 2, merging two clusters is a mere application of a computer tool (M.L. algorithm), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In step 2B, merely applying a computer tool is not indicative of significantly more.) ii) repeating step g; (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) iii) comparing the error that was calculated prior to the merging to the error that was calculated after the merging; (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) iv) repeating steps i) to iii) until the error that was calculated after the merging is within a predefined error threshold 6, or a maximum number of iterations achieved. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 3 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is a smart phone. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 4 recites The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the message is routed to the smart phone using a Private Branch Exchange (PBX) system. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 5 recites The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the message is a text message. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 6 recites The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the message is an audio voice mail. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 7 recites The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the smart phone is configured to provide video chat with a healthcare provider. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 8 recites The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the smart phone is associated with a specific individual. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 9 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the message is displayed to all individuals in the plurality of individuals that share the manifold cluster with the target individual. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 10 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the data set of real, continuous numbers consists of a motivation score, an intention score, an attitude score and an ownership score. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 11 recites The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising minimizing reconstruction error by:i. Deriving a mean vector and co-variance matrix A'J of a data set D'Jof a cluster; ii. Conducting an eigendecomposition on the A', to obtain an eigenvector matrix and an eigenvalue matrix; iii. Sorting the eigenvalues and re-arrange values in the eigenvalue matrix and corresponding eigenvectors in the eigenvector matrix obtained from ii); iv. Choosing P' (<= n) non-zero eigenvalues and splitting the eigenvector matrix into a matrix of leading P' eigenvectors WP', and another matrix W("-P') consisting of residual (n-P') eigenvectors. v. Defining a local coordinate frame for a subspace (Sj) using the leading eigenvector (P') in the eigenvector matrix WP';vi. Calculating the square-magnitude projection error of mapping every data point (dy") in Dn'1 to the subspace (Sj) and a total projection error; viii. Computing a total reconstruction error ratio of two successive rounds in vi); wherein the minimizing reconstruction error is performed after g) and before h). (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 12 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein each statistically significant association pattern Pqk-O is an O-th order pattern composed of variable instantiation values (valj,1k-°, ..., val ,o°°) having a joint probability Pr(val,1ko°, ..., val,o-°) that satisfies:(i) Pr(valj,1ko°, ..., val ,o0°) >a, and
PNG
media_image3.png
17
116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
14
10
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(ii) MI(val,°, ..., val ,o') > (1/Pr(val,1ko'... val,ok° where MI is mutual information, x2 is Pearson chi-square, N is sample size, E is expected entropy measure, and E' is maximum possible entropy. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 13 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein each disjoint cluster has the statistically significant association pattern as a pivotal element. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 14 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the association pattern Pqk-O is defined in a computational geometry space l' of n-ary discrete complete probability distributions (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 15 recites The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the membership function evaluates probabilities Pr(valq, valq,
PNG
media_image5.png
15
10
media_image5.png
Greyscale
'°) and Pr(val,
PNG
media_image6.png
15
45
media_image6.png
Greyscale
valiok'') in continuous space while Pq''O and Pk''
PNG
media_image7.png
5
5
media_image7.png
Greyscale
' are defined in discrete space. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowed if the 101 rejection set forth is overcame. However, until the U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth is overcome, claims 1-15 will remain rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12-NOVEMBER-2025 have been fully considered, but they are found to be non-persuasive
With regards to the applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 rejection towards an abstract idea, the applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection of identifying the overlap and generating data
The PBX messaging system represents a concrete technological component that delivers messages based on the manifold clustering operations. As the Federal Circuit has recognized, claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology are not directed to abstract ideas. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The delivery of tailored messages to target individuals based on manifold cluster assignments demonstrates a practical application that goes beyond merely applying mathematical concepts on a computer. The claimed system creates a technological solution for delivering targeted communications based on sophisticated data analysis, which represent an improvement to messaging technology infrastructure. This delivery mechanism requires specific communication protocols that transform the mathematical clustering results into actionable message delivery. Furthermore, the specification supports that the PBX messaging system enables delivery of personalized recommendations and interventions. See specification at [0022] ("The personalized recommendations may be sent through a Private Branch Exchange (PBX) messaging system and may be in the form of a text message, an audio voice mail, or other similar communication. In one embodiment, the smart phone is configured to connect back to the system for further medical assistance, such as an embedded video chat system feature to connect a patient with a healthcare provider. The claimed method's use of manifold clustering to tailor messages represents a specific technological implementation that improves the efficiency and accuracy of message targeting. The PBX messaging system's delivery of messages tailored to manifold clusters enables the system to provide personalized communications, which is beneficial for the practical application of delivering targeted information over time.
With regards to this argument, the Examiner acknowledges the intended improvement. However, it should be remembered that the improvement in the art should be obvious from the claims. As it is, the claims do not make it clear that the improvement in the art is the more personalized and efficient messages of the PBX system utilizing the manifold clusters as a bulk of the claim is a description of how to process the clusters and not how they are used by the system to achieve the improvement. As such, the claims seem to show the improvement solely within the manifold cluster processing which is then applied. Due to this, the 101 rejection will be maintained as, without further clarifying language and structure, the claim does not show the intended improvement and instead shows that the improvement lies solely within abstract idea. Further, MPEP 2106(a)(II) provides a basis, “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.”
Most pertinent to the present case, in Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Bascom"), the court found patent-eligible a system that filtered internet content by customizing filtering at a remote ISP server, holding that "the claims' invocation of a particular arrangement of elements is a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content" that "amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea." The court emphasized that the specific technological implementation of content filtering represented an improvement over prior art filtering systems. Similarly, in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("DDR Holdings"), the court held patent-eligible claims directed to generating composite web pages that combined visual elements of a host website with content from a third-party merchant, finding that the claims addressed "a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" and provided a technological solution that was "necessarily rooted in computer technology." Here, as in Bascom and DDR Holdings, the claimed invention provides a specific technological solution to the problem of delivering targeted messages based on sophisticated data analysis. The integration of manifold clustering with PBX messaging systems represents a concrete improvement to messaging technology that enables more precise and effective communication delivery. The claims do not merely use generic computer components to perform abstract mathematical calculations, but rather recite a specific arrangement of technological elements that work together to achieve an improved result in message targeting and delivery. The delivery of tailored messages to target individuals based on manifold cluster assignments demonstrates a practical application that goes beyond merely applying mathematical concepts on a computer. The claimed system creates a technological solution for delivering targeted communications based on sophisticated data analysis, which represents an improvement to messaging technology infrastructure. This delivery mechanism requires specific communication protocols that transform the mathematical clustering results into actionable message delivery. The specification supports that the PBX messaging system may enable delivery of personalized recommendations and interventions. See specification at [0022] ("The personalized recommendations may be sent through a Private Branch Exchange (PBX) messaging system and may be in the form of a text message, an audio voice mail, or other similar communication. In one embodiment, the smart phone is configured to connect back to the system for further medical assistance, such as an embedded video chat system feature to connect a patient with a healthcare provider.").
With regards to this argument, the examiner acknowledges the similarity between Bascom and the presented case. However, all cases are examined and considered separately. While Bascom can provide guidance towards a decision in the presented case, that does not mean that the decision of Bascom will apply to the presented case. Bascom itself holds technicalities that are not presented in this case and as such will not be used for a basis of decision upon the 101 rejection. Further, to address the conclusion made from the similarities, the examiner restates that the improvement of the invention is not clear within the claims and as such the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SKIELER A KOWALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-1850. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571)270-1006. 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.
/SKIELER ALEXANDER KOWALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2142
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142