DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is in response to the correspondence filed on 09/07/23. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Examiner notes that each of the instant claims recite, “… determine a degree of relatedness between the deconstructed data extracted from the data source and the other deconstructed data… to determine a relationship between the deconstructed data ” ; yet does not appear to specif y between the deconstructed data and what , so to speak . Therefore, Examiner respectfully notes that the instant claims are indefinite in that it is unclear as to what the claimed relationship is reference to. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 14 , the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Examiner notes that the instant claim is directed to a system claim which depends upon a method claim; thus, directs the claim to two different statutory categories of invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (2020/0356579). Claim 1: Anderson et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for performing a forensic investigation [page 27, paragraph 0277] , at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising: connecting the computing device to a data source, extracting data from the data source (data records sent to segmentation engine) [page 14, paragraph 0154] ; wherein the data includes a plurality of data types (segment values and/or identifiers) [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; the computing device deconstructing the data by type and storing the deconstructed data on a storage device associated with the computing device (partitioning into segments) [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; the computing device comparing the deconstructed data to other deconstructed data stored on the storage device associated with the computing device (identifies matches) [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; the computing device determining a degree of relatedness between the deconstructed data extracted from the data source and the other deconstructed data stored on the storage device to determine a relationship between the deconstructed data (scoring) [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; and, displaying the relationship on a display device associated with the computing device (display enables user to readily distinguish decisions made by clustering engine) [page 8, paragraph 0097] . Claim 2: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the other data stored on storage device was extracted from a second data source wherein the data source and the second data source are heterogenous technologies [page 4, paragraphs 0067-0069] . Claim 3: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 further including the computing device utilizing a plurality of modules to deconstruct the data; wherein each of the plurality of modules is configured to respectively deconstruct a different data type from the data [page 6, paragraph s 0080 & 0085 | page 7, paragraph 0089] . Claim 4: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the computing device employs machine learning to create clusters from the deconstructed data [pages 25-26, paragraphs 0257 & 0264-0265] . Claim 7: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the relationship is displayed in a link view [page 7, paragraph 0093 | page 8, paragraphs 0096-0097 | page 9, paragraphs 0110-0112] . Claim 8: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the relationship is displayed in a grid view [page 7, paragraph 0093 | page 8, paragraphs 0096-0097 | page 9, paragraphs 0110-0112] . Claim 9: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein extracting data includes monitoring the data as it is stored on the data source and copying the stored data [page 14, paragraph 0154 | page 15, paragraph 0161] . Claim 10: Anderson et al. discloses a system for performing a forensic investigation, the system comprising: a forensic tool associated with a storage device and a display device [page 27, paragraph 0277] , and a plurality of data sources [page 4, paragraphs 0067-0069] ; wherein the forensic tool is configured to communicate with each of the plurality of data sources respectively and extract data from each of the plurality of data sources and store the extracted data on the storage device [page 14, paragraph 0154] ; the forensic tool including a plurality of examining modules for deconstructing the extracted data into a plurality of data types [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; wherein each of the plurality of examining modules is respectively configured to operate on a different set of data types [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; the forensic tool including a plurality of matching modules for comparing the deconstructed data from the plurality of data sources; wherein each of the plurality of matching modules is respectively configured to operate on a different set of data types [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; the forensic tool configured to determining a degree of relatedness between the deconstructed data extracted from the plurality of data sources to determine a relationship between the deconstructed data [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; and, the forensic tool being associated with a display for displaying the relationship [page 8, paragraph 0097] . Claim 11: Anderson et al. discloses the system according to claim 10 the forensic tool further comprising a machine learning module for determining a degree of relatedness [pages 25-26, paragraphs 0257 & 0264-0265] . Claim 13: Anderson et al. discloses the system according to claim 11 wherein the machine learning module is configured to create clusters from the deconstructed data [page 8, paragraph 0097]. Claim 14: Anderson et al. discloses the system according to claim 10 wherein at least one of the plurality of examining modules, the plurality of matching modules, and the machine learning module are plugin modules that can be added or removed from the forensic tool [page 28, paragraph 0284] . Claim 15: Anderson et al. discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of data sources data source wherein the data source and the second data source are heterogenous technologies [page 4, paragraphs 0067-0069] . Claim 16: Anderson et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to: connect to a data source, extract data from the data source [page 14, paragraph 0154] ; wherein the data includes a plurality of data types [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; deconstructing the data by type and store the deconstructed data on a storage device associated with the computing device [page 14, paragraphs 0155-0156] ; compare the deconstructed data to other deconstructed data stored on the storage device [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; determine a degree of relatedness between the deconstructed data extracted from the data source and the other deconstructed data stored on the storage device to determine a relationship between the deconstructed data [pages 7-8, paragraph 0094] ; and, display the relationship on a display device associated with the computing device [page 8, paragraph 0097] . Claim 17: Anderson et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16, wherein the instructions further causing the computing device to employ machine learning to create clusters from the deconstructed data [pages 25-26, paragraphs 0257 & 0264-0265] . Claim 18: Anderson et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16, the instructions further causing the computing device to display the relationship in a link view on the display device [page 7, paragraph 0093 | page 8, paragraphs 0096-0097 | page 9, paragraphs 0110-0112] . Claim 19: Anderson et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16, the instructions further causing the computing device to display the relationship in a grid view on the display device [page 7, paragraph 0093 | page 8, paragraphs 0096-0097 | page 9, paragraphs 0110-0112] . Claim 20: Anderson et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16, the instructions further causing the computing device to monitor the data as it is stored on the data source and copy the stored data from the data source to the storage device [page 14, paragraph 0154 | page 15, paragraph 0161] . 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. Claim(s) 5, 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (2020/0356579) in view of Chen et al. (2003/0140020). Claim 5: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 4 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning is unsupervised machine learning. However, Chen et al. discloses a similar invention [page 3, paragraph 0050] and further discloses wherein the machine learning is unsupervised machine learning [page 3, paragraph 0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Anderson et al. with the additional features of Chen et al. , in order to utilizing a universal data analysis method which will not induce information loss , as suggested by Chen et al. [ page 2, paragraphs 0028 & 0032 ]. Claim 6: Anderson et al. discloses the method according to claim 4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning is supervised machine learning. However, Chen et al. discloses a similar invention [page 3, paragraph 0050] and further discloses wherein the machine learning is supervised machine learning [page 3, paragraph 0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Anderson et al. with the additional features of Chen et al. , in order to utilizing a universal data analysis method which will not induce information loss, as suggested by Chen et al. [page 2, paragraphs 0028 & 0032]. Claim 12: Anderson et al. discloses the system according to claim 11 does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning module is configured to perform unsupervised machine learning. However, Chen et al. discloses a similar invention [page 3, paragraph 0050] and further discloses wherein the machine learning module is configured to perform unsupervised machine learning [page 3, paragraph 0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Anderson et al. with the additional features of Chen et al. , in order to utilizing a universal data analysis method which will not induce information loss, as suggested by Chen et al. [page 2, paragraphs 0028 & 0032]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1686 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3351 . 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. /EDWARD ZEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435