DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Request for Continued Examination filed on 19 September 2025.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 is/are in independent form.
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
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 13 have been cancelled.
No claims have been newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the recited feature of “two-dimension” should be recited as “two-dimensional”;
the recited feature of “three dimension” should be recited as “three-dimensional”; and
the recited feature of “three dimensional” should be recited as “three-dimensional”.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 9, the claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining a two-dimension (2D) tabular structure…”, “calculating pairwise similarities…”, “normalizing each numerical feature…”, “normalizing each record in X…”, “sampling X…”, “multiplying X…”, “calculating a number of desired edges…”, “extracting a reduced subset of edges…”, “sorting entries from matrix A…”, “selecting the first e entries…”, “constructing a three dimensional (3D) network structure…”, “visualizing the 3D network structure…”.
The limitations directed towards “calculating pairwise similarities…”, “normalizing each numerical feature…”, “normalizing each record in X…”, “sampling X…”, “multiplying X…”, “calculating a number of desired edges…”, “extracting a reduced subset of edges…”, “sorting entries from matrix A…”, “selecting the first e entries…”, and “constructing a network structure…” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment steps, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a memory” in claim 9, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the making mathematical calculations of similarities using a distance function. For example, “generating an edge list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating sorting the aforementioned mathematical calculations. For example, the “normalizing” features in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making mathematical calculations. For example, “multiplying X” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making a multiplication mathematical calculation. For example, “calculating a number of desired edges” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making a mathematical calculation via the provided formula. For example, “extracting a reduced subset of edges” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting a subset of edges. For example, “sorting entries” and “selecting the first e entries” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally sorting and selecting edges from largest to smallest. For example, “constructing a network structure” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally defining a network structure from the selected subset of edges. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition to the claim limitations, which were determined to recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, certain elements of claim 1 also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites "obtaining a tabular data structure" and “storing the pairwise similarities”. These limitations can be reasonably characterized as merely constituting the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering:
“An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The Federal Circuit has held that data gathering steps "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In this case, the pre-solution activity of storing a unified contextual graph for analysis may be considered a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process such as resolving conflicting attributes. This is highly analogous with the example provided above regarding insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering
Additionally, the claimed feature of “visualizing the network structure using a display” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “obtaining” and “visualizing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "obtaining", “storing”, and “visualizing” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16, the claims recite further details of using distance functions and evaluating the network structure. Since these concepts merely detail/enumerate elements already a part of the abstract idea, they cannot be described as adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 17 is/are directed to an abstract idea for constructing a final network structure and recites, in part, a system for “initializing a KMeans algorithm”, “generating K clusters”, “initializing the KMeans algorithms such that centroids use points”, “running the KMeans algorithm.” These features correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as an abstract concept of mathematically manipulating data to modify characteristics of the data and generate additional data. All these aforementioned steps are abstract mathematical concepts and algorithms that could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, without need of any computer or other machine. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372—73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes—or processes of human thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”);Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature . . . , mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work” (emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.").
The limitations directed towards “compose the subset of edges”, “select the top number of edges”, and “construct a final network structure…” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment steps, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “compose subset of edges” and “select the top number of edges” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting a subset of edges. For example, “construct a final network structure” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally defining a network structure from the selected subset of edges. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition to the claim limitations, which were determined to recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, certain elements of claim 1 also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites "obtaining a tabular data structure." This limitation reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering:
“An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The Federal Circuit has held that data gathering steps "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In this case, the pre-solution activity of storing a unified contextual graph for analysis may be considered a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process such as resolving conflicting attributes. This is highly analogous with the example provided above regarding insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering
Additionally, the claimed feature of “visualize the final network structure using a display” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “obtaining” and “visualizing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "obtaining" and “visualize limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 18-20, the claims recite further details of using distance functions and evaluating the network structure. Since these concepts merely detail/enumerate elements already a part of the abstract idea, they cannot be described as adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant asserts the argument that “additional technical improvements are found in the claimed matter in an increase in computer efficiency.” See Amendment, page 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims do not recite any specific algorithmic steps that ensure faster operation, nor do they include structural features of the alleged improvement (e.g., specialized data layouts, memory access strategies, or processor-level optimizations). At most, the claims invoke generic processors and memory to execute mathematical concepts (matrix multiplication, network extraction). Any efficiency benefit is alleged in the specification but is not commensurate in scope with the claim language, which is drawn at a level of abstraction that covers conventional data analysis performed on standard computing components. Improvements limited to mathematical operations, without recitation of a particular technological implementation, remain abstract ideas.
Additionally, Applicant’s reliance on the visualization of tabular data as a 3D network does not demonstrate integration into a practical application. Transforming data from one mathematical form into another is an example of an abstract idea. Presenting or displaying information, even in a novel or useful way, has consistently been treated as abstract. The claims here merely provide the result of displaying data in a form more comprehensible to humans, but do not recite a specific improvement to computer graphic technology, rendering techniques, or any other aspect of computer functionality. Any benefit resides in human cognitive processing rather than a technical improvement in the operation of a computer system.
Lastly, Applicant’s reliance on the argument that the claims are “not well-understood, routine, or conventional” is not supported by the record. The claims steps are generic computer functions which are each well-understood and conventional in the art. Simply applying these functions in sequence to achieve a 3D representation of 2D data does not amount to an inventive concept under Alice Step 2. Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional must be determined on the claim language and supporting evidence, and here the claims recite no more than the conventional computer functionality applied to abstract data manipulation.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/