Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/141,338, filed on 4/28/2023 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/28/2023 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/363,800 filed on 04/28/2022
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract in the present disclosure is more than 150 words
Appropriate correction required
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,10,19, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,10,19 A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving analysis data from at least one data source;
projecting the analysis data to a first embedding based on at least one metric;
determining a first lowest cover resolution of the first embedding that identifies non- overlapping secondary coverings based on sets within one of the covers of the first embedding;
identifying a branch point of a first connected-component network based on the non- overlapping secondary coverings;
generating subsets from the branch point based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings;
if a network generation threshold has not been met, then for each subset from the branch point, determining a second lowest cover resolution that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on the sets within one of the covers of a particular subset to identify a new branch point and new subsets from that branch point of the first connected-component network;
for each leaf of the connected-component network, identify embeddings of a feature space and generate a local object embedding space using a transposition of segmented features with related objects;
adding coordinates of objects within each leaf of the local object embedding to a data array;
projecting array data from the data array to a second embedding;
determining a third lowest cover resolution of the second embedding that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on sets within one of the covers of the second embedding;
identifying a branch point of a second connected-component network based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings;
generating subsets from the branch point based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings;
if a network generation threshold has not been met, then for each subset from the branch point, determining a second lowest cover resolution that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on the sets within one of the covers of a particular subset to identify a new branch point and new subsets from that branch point of the second connected-component network; and
generating a visualization depicted centroids of leaves and branches within the second connected-component network”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, receiving….., projecting….., determining…….identifying branch point….., generating subsets……, n the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of mere data collection
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of generating subsets from the branch point, comparing with second lowest, third lowest threshold and like o effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0202-0218, fig 45 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0202-0218, fig 45 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,11, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising “generating the secondary coverings by determining, for each set that has data within the cover, a centroid and determining a radius based on the centroid that covers at least that particular set”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,12, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2, wherein the centroid for a particular set is determined based on the data within that particular set”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,13, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first embedding comprises a metric space containing projected data, the projected data being one to one in the first embedding”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5,14, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein new branch points and new segments are determined based on new non-overlapping secondary coverings until the network generation threshold is met”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,15, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein projecting the array data from the data array to the second embedding uses at least the same metric as projecting the received data to the first embedding”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,16, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, for each leaf of the first connected-component network, projecting the leaf data of that leaf into a separate embedding and determining non-overlapping secondary coverings at the lowest resolution covering of that particular separate embedding to identify metafeature groups, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8,17, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein object membership of each metafeature group of each leaf is added to the data array”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9,18, further elaborates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the object membership of each metafeature group of each leaf is added to the data array before projecting the array data from the data array to the second embedding”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., (hereafter Liu), US Pub. No. 2024/0185028 based on provisional application filed Apr, 2021 in view of Gershinsky et al., (hereafter Gershinsky), US Pub. No. 2011/0184676 published Jul, 2011
As to Claim 1,10,19, Liu teaches a system which including “ A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method, the method comprising” (Liu: fig 1: Liu teaches both hardware and software including non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions – claim 50)
“receiving analysis data from at least one data source” (Liu: 0024-0026, fig 1 – Liu teaches learning component process data from various sources i.e, collected data using collection module element 100, analyzing data);
“projecting the analysis data to a first embedding based on at least one metric” (Liu: 0097-0098 – Liu teaches using HiDENN learning methods processing, analyzing data projection providing knowledge database);;
“determining a first lowest cover resolution of the first embedding that identifies non- overlapping secondary coverings based on sets within one of the covers of the first embedding” (0232-0233,0236 – Liu teaches using module element 100, various parameters identified as input variables to predict complex , accurate clustering analysis that including multi resolution where identifying lower cover resolution with respect to computation time);
“identifying a branch point of a first connected-component network based on the non- overlapping secondary coverings” (Liu: 0138-0139, fig 23 – Liu teaches bi-linear HiDeNN that presents defined block elements as unit neural network nodal coordinates, positions are non-overlapping nodal coordinates) ;
“generating subsets from the branch point based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings” (Liu: 0139 – Liu teaches updated nodal coordinate positions of the from the activation function of the neural networks) ;
“ if a network generation threshold has not been met, then for each subset from the branch point, determining a second lowest cover resolution that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on the sets within one of the covers of a particular subset to identify a new branch point and new subsets from that branch point of the first connected-component network” (Liu: 0140-0141, fig 23-24 - Liu teaches unified neural network defining nodal coordinates with boundary conditions, and operational layer is used in training new points);
PNG
media_image1.png
154
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
187
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“for each leaf of the connected-component network, identify embeddings of a feature space and generate a local object embedding space using a transposition of segmented features with related objects” (Liu: 0182-0183 – Liu teaches HiDENN applied in generating objects, particularly feature using deep convolutional neural network processes parametric input embedded space of the respective layer);
“adding coordinates of objects within each leaf of the local object embedding to a data array” (Liu: 0054,0138 – Liu teaches adding coordinates for example nodal (x, y);
“projecting array data from the data array to a second embedding” (Liu: 0097-0098 – Liu teaches using HiDENN learning methods processing, analyzing data projection providing knowledge database)
“determining a third lowest cover resolution of the second embedding that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on sets within one of the covers of the second embedding” (Liu: 0237-0238 – Liu teaches machine learning decision on multimodal data generation identifying selected features including K-means clustering predicting material response range resolutions) ;
“identifying a branch point of a second connected-component network based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings(Liu: 0138-0139, fig 23 – Liu teaches bi-linear HiDeNN that presents defined block elements as unit neural network nodal coordinates, positions are non-overlapping nodal coordinates);
“generating subsets from the branch point based on the non-overlapping secondary coverings(Liu: 0139 – Liu teaches updated nodal coordinate positions of the from the activation function of the neural networks) ;;
if a network generation threshold has not been met, then for each subset from the branch point, determining a second lowest cover resolution that identifies non-overlapping secondary coverings based on the sets within one of the covers of a particular subset to identify a new branch point and new subsets from that branch point of the second connected-component network” (Liu: 0140-0141, fig 23-24 - Liu teaches unified neural network defining nodal coordinates with boundary conditions, and operational layer is used in training new points);
PNG
media_image1.png
154
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
187
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and
“generating a visualization depicted of leaves and branches within the second connected-component network” (Liu: fig 31, fig 33).
It is however, noted that Liu does not disclose “visualization depicted centroids of leaves”, although Liu teaches user interface allows to display reduced order model behavior graph (fig 16b), test results, computational iterations with respect to time, degrees of freedom (fig 25 and fig 26). On the other hand, Gershinsky disclosed “visualization depicted centroids of leaves” (Abstract, fig 3, element 330, f0053-0056 fig 4, element 330, fig 5,0074,0082 – Gershinsky teaches resolution model determines measurement of similarity between centroid clusters)
PNG
media_image3.png
100
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
151
97
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
241
153
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention data reduction in multi-node system particularly n-dimension space provides groups of child nodes of Gershinsky et al., into hierarchical deep learning neural network for data processing including data collection, analyzing data of Liu et al., because both Liu, Gershinsky teaches multiple data clusters (Liu: fig 16a; Gershinsky: 0005, set of clusters, fig 2 cluster module), and both Liu, Gershinsky teaches machine learning methods (Liu: 0007; Gershinsky: 0043), and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Liu, Gershinsky teaches data clustering, and machine learning model, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method particularly allows simplify dense datasets, patterns from the multidimensional cluster groups, identify specific data sets behavior of respective nodes (Gershinsky: 0005-0006)
As to Claim 2,11, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “generating the secondary coverings by determining, for each set that has data within the cover (Liu: 0238-0239), On the other hand, Gershinsky disclosed “ a centroid and determining a radius based on the centroid that covers at least that particular set” (Gershinsky: fig 3-5, 0018,0037, 0045,0056,0073).
As to Claim 3,12, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein the centroid for a particular set is determined based on the data within that particular set” (Gershinsky: fig 3-5, 0072-0074).
As to Claim 4,13, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein the first embedding comprises a metric space containing projected data, the projected data being one to one in the first embedding” (Liu: 0127-0128).
As to Claim 5,14, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein new branch points and new segments are determined based on new non-overlapping secondary coverings until the network generation threshold is met” (Liu: 0138, 0141).
As to Claim 6,15, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein projecting the array data from the data array to the second embedding uses at least the same metric as projecting the received data to the first embedding” (Liu: Liu: 0097-0098,103).
As to Claim 7,16, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “for each leaf of the first connected-component network, projecting the leaf data of that leaf into a separate embedding (Liu: 0100-0105) and determining non-overlapping secondary coverings at the lowest resolution covering of that particular separate embedding to identify metafeature groups” (Liu: Liu: 0237-0238);
As to Claim 8,17, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein object membership of each metafeature group of each leaf is added to the data array” (Liu: 0138-0139).
As to Claim 9,18, the combination of Liu, Gershinsky disclosed “wherein the object membership of each metafeature group of each leaf is added to the data array before projecting the array data from the data array to the second embedding” (Liu: 0127-0128, 0131-0132,0171-0172)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2024/0185028
b. US Pub. No. 2011/0184676
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights