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
This action is response to the communication filed on February 10, 2026. Claims 60-79 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejection filed on January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. Applicant arguments regarding 101 rejection are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, applicant argues the modest amendment to the claims overcome the 101 rejection.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The arguing limitation “receive a selected vantage point having a feature vector, wherein the vantage point is selected with a method statistically unlikely to be close to any objects within the universe” is an additional limitation which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation is nothing but amounts to mere data gathering. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the receiving step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component such as computer-readable medium. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Objections
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of the claim 60 it recites “modify operation of”. Examiner believe it’s a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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 60-79 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. All independent claims recited “a method statistically unlikely to be close to any objects within the universe”, wherein the phrase “unlikely” render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are rejected based on their respective dependency.
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 60-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites receive a selected vantage point having a feature vector, wherein the vantage point is selected with a method statistically unlikely to be close to any objects within the universe; compute, for the featurized objects in the universe, respective distances from the selected vantage point, and sort the featurized objects into a sorted container based on their distances from the selected vantage point; cluster adjacent objects into a plurality of micro-clusters based on determining that objects have a distance from a next adjacent object less than a maximum distance; and store the micro-clusters onto a tangible computer-readable medium to modify operation of a computing apparatus to mitigate malicious objects based on objects in the micro-clusters.
The claim recited the limitation of “cluster adjacent objects into a plurality of micro-clusters based on determining that objects have a distance from a next adjacent object less than a maximum distance” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally perform this step from the received information. Therefore, the clustering limitation is a mental process. Similarly, the limitation “store the micro-clusters ……” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally store (memorizing) information. Therefore, storing limitation is mental process.
The claim recites two additional elements: receive a selected vantage point having a feature vector, wherein the vantage point is selected with a method statistically unlikely to be close to any objects within the universe; compute, for the featurized objects in the universe, respective distances from the selected vantage point, and sort the featurized objects into a sorted container based on their distances from the selected vantage point. The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). The computing step as recited is merely selecting data for processing the received data which is nothing more than data gathering and outputting. Hence, computing step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving and computing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component such as computer-readable medium. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 61 is dependent on claim 60 and includes all the limitations of claim 60. Therefore, claim 61 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein computing respective distances comprises using a locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 62 is dependent on claim 61 and includes all the limitations of claim 61. Therefore, claim 62 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the LSH algorithm is TLSH, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 63 is dependent on claim 60 and includes all the limitations of claim 60. Therefore, claim 63 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further to remove, from the sorted container, objects that were clustered into micro-clusters, selecting a new vantage point, building a new sorted container, and repeating clustering adjacent objects, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 64 is dependent on claim 63 and includes all the limitations of claim 63. Therefore, claim 64 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the new vantage point is a median object in the sorted container after removing the objects that were clustered into micro-containers, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 65 is dependent on claim 63 and includes all the limitations of claim 63. Therefore, claim 65 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further to iterate removing objects that were clustered into micro-clusters, selecting a new vantage point, building a new sorted container, and repeating clustering adjacent objects, until an iteration forms no new clusters or a positive integer MAX_PASSES is reached, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 66 is dependent on claim 60 and includes all the limitations of claim 60. Therefore, claim 66 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the instructions are further to find, for a micro-cluster, an object signature that reads on all objects in the micro-cluster, and use the object signature to detect and remediate computer malware, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 67-70, 75-79, they have similar limitations as of claims 60-66 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 60-66 above.
Claim 71 is dependent on claim 67 and includes all the limitations of claim 67. Therefore, claim 71 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with all characters being a common character, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 72 is dependent on claim 67 and includes all the limitations of claim 67. Therefore, claim 72 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with all characters being hexadecimal ‘f’, ‘7’, ‘1’, or ‘0’, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 73 is dependent on claim 67 and includes all the limitations of claim 67. Therefore, claim 73 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with characters comprising a repeating pattern, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 74 is dependent on claim 67 and includes all the limitations of claim 67. Therefore, claim 74 recites the same abstract idea of clustering object. The claim recites the limitations of selecting the vantage point comprises randomly generating a feature vector, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
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.
Claims 60-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra et al. (Pub. No. : US 20140229473 A1) in the view of Dong et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210055117 A1) and Yen et al. (Pub. No. : US 20240338438 A1).
As to claim 60 Mehrotra teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions to clustering a universe of featurized objects into micro-clusters, the instructions to:
receive a selected vantage point having a feature vector (paragraph [0053]: The one or more vantage points may be randomly-selected vectors from within a dataset corresponding to the document vectors. Alternatively, the one or more vantage points may be determined by calculating the centroid, i.e., the weighted average, of the dataset, and using the centroid as the vantage point), wherein the vantage point is selected with a method statistically unlikely to be close to any objects (Paragraph [0059], [0091]: all the multiple machines corresponding to the documents in the document cluster may compute distances from the documents on the machine to the vantage point);
compute, for the featurized objects in the universe, respective distances from the selected vantage point, and sort the featurized objects into a sorted container based on their distances from the selected vantage point (paragraphs [0053], [0126]: nodes for the vantage point tree are constructed by partitioning the document vectors into roughly equal sized clusters based on a distance of each document vector from the vantage point. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the document vectors may be clustered into three roughly equal sized clusters, e.g., C.sub.0, C.sub.1, and C.sub.2, by the distance of each document vector to the vantage point. Each cluster may form a new node in the vantage point tree. Once the distances have been computed, a distributed sort can be performed. This distributed sort may sort the document vectors by their distance to the selected vantage point using any suitable type of distributed sorting algorithm).
Mehrotra does not explicitly disclose but Dong teaches cluster adjacent objects into a plurality of micro-clusters based on determining that objects have a distance from a next adjacent object less than a maximum distance (paragraph [0073], [0038]: GPS data is input to Micro-cluster Sequence Builder module 516. Module 516 identifies the unmatched points and obtains the candidate transition points as described in connection with step 302 of FIG. 3. Module 516 transfers point sequences in the GPS data into micro-cluster sequences); and
store the micro-clusters onto a tangible computer-readable medium to modify operation of a computing apparatus to mitigate malicious objects based on objects in the micro-clusters (paragraph [0020], [0074]: Module 516 outputs the micro-cluster data wherein the storage system 34 is provided for writing to a non-removable, non-volatile magnetic media (not shown and typically called a “hard drive”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mehrotra by adding above limitation as taught by Dong to classify data for routes in a digitized map (see Dong, paragraph [0001]).
Mehrotra and Dong do not explicitly disclose but Yen teaches mitigate malicious objects (paragraph [0030], [0041]: Analyses of the resulting data can provide unique actionable insights into network scanning activities that can be used to prevent or mitigate cyber-threats). It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mehrotra and Dong by adding above limitation as taught by Yen to monitor and prevent the cyber-attacks (Yen, paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 61 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 60. Mehrotra teaches wherein computing respective distances comprises using a locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 62 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 61. Mehrotra teaches wherein the LSH algorithm is TLSH (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 63 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 60. Mehrotra teaches wherein the instructions are further to remove, from the sorted container, objects that were clustered into micro-clusters, selecting a new vantage point, building a new sorted container, and repeating clustering adjacent objects (paragraphs [0053], [0056], [0128]).
As to claim 64 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 63. Mehrotra teaches wherein the new vantage point is a median object in the sorted container after removing the objects that were clustered into micro-containers (paragraph [0056]-[0057]).
As to claim 65 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 63. Mehrotra teaches wherein the instructions are further to iterate removing objects that were clustered into micro-clusters, selecting a new vantage point, building a new sorted container, and repeating clustering adjacent objects, until an iteration forms no new clusters or a positive integer MAX_PASSES is reached (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0056], [0128]).
As to claim 66 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 60. Dong teaches wherein the instructions are further to find, for a micro-cluster, an object signature that reads on all objects in the micro-cluster, and use the object signature to detect and remediate computer malware (paragraph [0027]-[0028], [0073]).
As to claims 67-70, 75-79, they have similar limitations as of claims 60-66 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 60-66 above.
As to claim 71 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches method according to claim 67. Mehrotra teaches selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with all characters being a common character (paragraph [0064]-[0065]).
As to claim 72 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches method according to claim 67. Mehrotra teaches selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with all characters being hexadecimal ‘f’, ‘7’, ‘1’, or ‘0’ (paragraph [0055]).
As to claim 73 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches method according to claim 67. Mehrotra teaches selecting the vantage point comprises selecting a feature vector with characters comprising a repeating pattern (paragraphs [0059], [0065]).
As to claim 74 Mehrotra together with Dong and Yen teaches method according to claim 67. Mehrotra teaches selecting the vantage point comprises randomly generating a feature vector (paragraphs [0056], [0065]).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as 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 the 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 its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights