DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on August 7, 2023. Claims 1-7 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is the independent claim.
This action is non-final.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental steps) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because any additional elements amount to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claim 1, and relying on the evaluation flowchart in MPEP 2106:
Step 1 (Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?): Yes. Claim 1 is a consensus graph learning-based multi-view clustering method (process).
Step 2a Prong One (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?): Yes. Claim 1 recites:
S1 … obtain a spectral embedding matrix (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 28, third paragraph of the specification of the instant application “the spectral embedding matrix can be obtained by applying spectral clustering,” and providing the associated mathematical function, where page 21, background section describes spectral clustering as being popular due to its solid mathematical framework; this limitation may also be interpreted as reciting a mental process, such as a mathematical calculation that can be performed in the human mind, including using a physical aid such as pen and paper);
S2, calculating a similarity graph matrix and a Laplacian matrix based on the spectral embedding matrix (a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, such as a mathematical calculation that can be performed in the human mind, including using a physical aid such as pen and paper);
S3, applying spectral clustering to the calculated similarity graph matrix to obtain spectral embedding representations (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 28, third paragraph of the specification of the instant application, and as further defined in dependent claim 2, the step of obtaining the spectral embedding representations in this step is accomplished by applying the provided mathematical formulas to perform a mathematical calculation);
S4, stacking inner products of the-normalized spectral embedding representations into a third-order tensor and using low-rank tensor representation learning to obtain a consistent distance matrix (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 28, fifth paragraph through page 29 first paragraph of the specification of the instant application, and as further defined in dependent claim 3, this step is accomplished by applying the provided mathematical formulas to perform a mathematical calculation);
S5, integrating spectral embedding representation learning and low-rank tensor representation learning into a unified learning framework to obtain an objective function (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 29, second paragraph through page 30 second paragraph of the specification of the instant application, and as further defined in dependent claim 4, this step is accomplished by applying the provided mathematical formulas to perform a mathematical calculation);
S6, solving the objective function through an alternative iterative optimization strategy to obtain a solved result (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 30, third paragraph through page 32 third line of the specification of the instant application, and as further defined in dependent claims 5, this step is accomplished by applying the provided mathematical formulas to perform a mathematical calculation);
S7, constructing a consistent similarity graph based on the solved result (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 32, lines 4-7 of the specification of the instant application, and as further defined in dependent claim 6, this step is accomplished by applying the provided mathematical formulas to perform a mathematical calculation); and
S8, applying spectral clustering to the consistent similarity graph to obtain a clustering result (a mathematical calculation; i.e. as described on page 28, third paragraph of the specification of the instant application spectral clustering may be performed using the associated mathematical function, where page 21, background section describes spectral clustering as being popular due to its solid mathematical framework; this limitation may also be interpreted as reciting a mental process, such as a mathematical calculation that can be performed in the human mind, including using a physical aid such as pen and paper);
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be performed mentally, using mental observation and mental determination, including by a human using a physical aid such as pen and paper, including a human mentally performing observations and mentally performing mathematical calculations, and therefore correspond to the Mental Processes grouping.
Step 2a Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No. Claim 1 additionally recites inputting an original data matrix (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, in view of the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h), the additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity, combined with implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Step 2b (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception): No. Relying on the same analysis as Step 2a Prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05.I.A: Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:…Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f));…Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception...; Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g);…)), claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, Claim 1 additionally recites inputting an original data matrix (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as necessary data gathering and outputting, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, etc., reevaluated under this prong as well understood routine conventional activity such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, etc.).
The additional elements as discussed above, in combination with the abstract idea, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and components used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 2:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
245
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 2 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 3:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claims 1 and 2. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
362
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 3 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 4:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claims 1-3. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image3.png
140
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 4 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 5:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claims 1-4. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image4.png
755
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 5 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 6:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claims 1-5. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image5.png
202
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 6 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 7:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claims 1-6. The claim further recites:
PNG
media_image6.png
718
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown above, claim 7 recites a mathematical calculation, i.e. applying the recited mathematical formulas.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
Step 2b: the claims do not recite any other limitations in addition to the abstract idea discussed above.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain,” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting in re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (GCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co, v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F,3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir, 2005): Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L STANLEY whose telephone number is (469)295-9105. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Al Kawsar, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-3169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JEREMY L STANLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights