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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 7/20/2026
Claims pending in the case: 1-24
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.
Claim(s) 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites the limitation "… related to the datashift ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 2 in the relevant part read: “wherein the select feature is related to the datashift”. Based on the claim language, it is unclear what is being referred to as “the datashift”. It is unclear which data is being considered and what this shift is with respect to. As such, a person of reasonable skill in the art would not be appraised of the metes and bounds of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, a reasonable interpretation of the limitation was not possible and this limitation is mapped to identifying shift in data trend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180357276) in view of Stern (US 20180262618) and Lefkofsky (US 20210319908).
Lefkofsky not used in the prior office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Ding teaches, A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of dimensions related to a data shift (Ding: Fig. 3, [22-25, 143]: receive multidimensional data);
selecting a subset of dimensions from the plurality of dimensions, the subset of dimensions being selected randomly (Ding: [28-39, 143-144]: subset of the data as subspace);
generating, by at least one hardware processor, a plurality of … graphs to classify a plurality of segments, each segment representing a combination of two or more dimensions of the subset of dimensions, and each … graph including a different root node representing a respective dimension of the subset of dimensions (Ding: [29-36, 58]: generate parent child relationship (tree) in different subspaces (different roots); [102]: meta insight mining);
the respective dimension represented by the root node of each decision tree graph is selected from the subset of dimensions using a … algorithm as a select feature of the randomly selected subset (Ding: [28-39]: select subset of the data as select features as subspace; generate parent child relationship (tree based on the root feature) in different subspaces (different roots); [102]: meta insight mining);
processing results of the plurality of decision tree graphs to identify contributing segment (Ding: [50-54]: generate insight); and
generating one more metrics representing contribution values of the contributing segments (Ding: [21, 90-91]: generate metrics based on insight);
Ding does not specifically teach,
decision tree graphs;
the respective dimension represented by the root node of each decision tree graph is selected from the subset of dimensions using a machine learning algorithm;
Stern teaches, decision tree graphs (Stern: [79-81, 85]: decision tree may be used to analyze cause of data variation (contributing segments); [47, 108-111]: machine learning algorithm to check relationships between presence absence of a features);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ding and Stern because the combination would enable using decision tree logic to generate insight by a machine learning model based on feature selection and comparison of the underlying data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable one of the several known machine learning tools to analyze data (see Stern [79]);
Lefkofsky further teaches,
the respective dimension represented by the root node of each decision tree graph is selected from the subset of dimensions using a machine learning algorithm (Lefkofsky: [9, 76, 197-201, 203]: machine learning algorithm to select and generate decision tree);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky because the combination would enable using machine learning algorithm to generate decision trees that may be analyzed to generate insight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination provides an efficient and meaningful ways to compile and analyze the data quickly, efficiently, and comprehensively (see Lefkofsky [1-2]).
Regarding claim 2, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein select feature is related to the datashift (Stern: [44]: feature indicating data shift).
Regarding claim 4, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the plurality of dimensions includes one or more continuous dimensions (Ding: [2, 25]: multi-dimensional data such as sales over time (continuous)).
Regarding claim 5, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, further comprising: receiving key performance indicators for the plurality of dimensions; and applying sample weights to the plurality of dimensions based on key performance indicators (Stern: [22]: weighted sum of performance indictor).
Regarding claim 6, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, further comprising: receiving identification of a treatment cohort containing the data shift; and receiving identification of a control cohort separate from the treatment cohort (Stern: [3, 24]: identify outliers (shift in data)).
Regarding claim 7, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, further comprising: generating an input query to identify root causes in the data shift, wherein the input query includes the plurality of dimensions, and wherein the input query is executed to generate the one or more metrics (Stern: [17, 29]: based on the outcome, query to generate further statistics).
Regarding Claim(s) 9-10, 12-15, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-18, 20-23, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180357276), Stern (US 20180262618) and Lefkofsky (US 20210319908) in view of WangZ (CN114549174A – refer to attached).
Regarding claim 8, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and,
WangZ further teaches, wherein the plurality of dimensions includes one or more categorical dimensions, and wherein the one or more categorical dimensions are converted to numerical values using an encoding technique (WangZ: Pg. 3 [5]: input information may be converted to numerical values for use in a model);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ding, Stern and WangZ because the combination would enable using numerical data for analysis by converting input type to numerical values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because numerical conversion would provide the means to use multi-dimensional data by converting to a numerical standard as is commonly done in the art. The combination enables the best practices followed in the art.
Regarding Claim(s) 11 and 19, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 3. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20180357276), Stern (US 20180262618) and Lefkofsky (US 20210319908) in view of Wang (US 20240094735).
Regarding claim 8, Ding, Stern and Lefkofsky teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and,
Wang further teaches, wherein processing results of the plurality of decision tree graphs includes de-duplicating overlapping segments generated in different decision tree graphs of the plurality of decision tree graphs (Wang: [9, 31, 50]: tree graph generation may include removing duplicate segments);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ding, Stern and Wang because the combination would enable removing duplicates during tree generation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because all these prior arts pertain to feature engineering and data processing of data. The combination would improve the process of data analysis by optimizing the tree by removing duplicates (see Wang [3, 9]).
Regarding Claim(s) 16 and 24, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 8. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ prior art arguments have been fully considered but since they pertain to the amended sections of the claim, they are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights