The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 6 October 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to signal per se.
Claim 1-7, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
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.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to signal per se, as computer readable medium can be transitory signal.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-7, 15-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ processing the first feature vector through a plurality of dimensionality reduction processes, wherein each of the plurality of dimensionality reduction processes generates a respective second feature vector, each of the second feature vectors has a smaller dimension than a dimension of the first feature vector; for each of the second feature vectors, determining an intermediate set of similarity samples; generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples; and generating an output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the steps of “processing … vector”, “determining … similarity”, “generating … clusters…”, “generating … similarity samples …”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). does not recite any additional element showing integration into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory") Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the intermediate set of similarity samples is determined by using a k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples comprises: performing a clustering operation based on an initial dimensionality space of the similarity samples in the intermediate set” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the clustering operation is based on k-means algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein generating the output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters comprises: selecting a preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the selecting the preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters: for each of the plurality of clusters, selecting the preset number of similarity samples having the shortest distance with the sample” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the sample is a software code”, which merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the sample is a software code””, which merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15-20,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ processing the first feature vector through a plurality of dimensionality reduction processes, wherein each of the plurality of dimensionality reduction processes generates a respective second feature vector, each of the second feature vectors has a smaller dimension than a dimension of the first feature vector; for each of the second feature vectors, determining an intermediate set of similarity samples; generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples; and generating an output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the steps of “processing … vector”, “determining … similarity”, “generating … clusters…”, “generating … similarity samples …”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: (a) “A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations …“, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). does not recite any additional element showing integration into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations …“, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory") Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 16-20 are dependent on claim 15 and include all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claims 16-20 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the intermediate set of similarity samples is determined by using a k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples comprises: performing a clustering operation based on an initial dimensionality space of the similarity samples in the intermediate set” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the clustering operation is based on k-means algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein generating the output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters comprises: selecting a preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 20, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the selecting the preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters: for each of the plurality of clusters, selecting the preset number of similarity samples having the shortest distance with the sample” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8-14,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 8
Step 1: The claim is directed a signal per se, which does not fall into one of the statutory categories. For compact prosecution, 101 judiciary exception analysis is performed below which can be applied when the non-statutory issue is fixed.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ processing the first feature vector through a plurality of dimensionality reduction processes, wherein each of the plurality of dimensionality reduction processes generates a respective second feature vector, each of the second feature vectors has a smaller dimension than a dimension of the first feature vector; for each of the second feature vectors, determining an intermediate set of similarity samples; generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples; and generating an output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the steps of “processing … vector”, “determining … similarity”, “generating … clusters…”, “generating … similarity samples …”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: (a) “A computer-readable medium containing instructions which, when executed, cause an electronic device to perform operations …“, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). does not recite any additional element showing integration into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A computer-readable medium containing instructions which, when executed, cause an electronic device to perform operations …“, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining a first feature vector of a sample”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory") Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 9-14 are dependent on claim 15 and include all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claims 9-14 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the intermediate set of similarity samples is determined by using a k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples comprises: performing a clustering operation based on an initial dimensionality space of the similarity samples in the intermediate set” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the clustering operation is based on k-means algorithm” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein generating the output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters comprises: selecting a preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the selecting the preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters: for each of the plurality of clusters, selecting the preset number of similarity samples having the shortest distance with the sample” (mental process and/or math concept), which describes further math processing of data, which is directed to a math concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the sample is a software code”, which merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the sample is a software code””, which merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 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 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al., US-PGPUB NO.20180150724A1 [hereafter Brock] in view of Lu et al, US-PGPUB NO.20190272344A1 [hereafter Lu].
With regards to claim 15, Brock teaches
“A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers (Brock, FIG.1, FIG.4, [0009],
PNG
media_image1.png
557
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), perform one or more operations comprising: obtaining a first feature vector of a sample; processing the first feature vector through a plurality of dimensionality reduction processes, wherein each of the plurality of dimensionality reduction processes generates a respective second feature vector, each of the second feature vectors has a smaller dimension than a dimension of the first feature vector (Brock, FIG.1-3, [0018] ‘… receive a plurality of files and generate feature vectors that can be representative of each file in the plurality of files … reduced dimensionality vectors can be generated based on the original dimensionality feature vectors …’,
PNG
media_image2.png
624
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
for each of the second feature vectors, … generating a plurality of clusters … (Brock, FIG.1-3, Claim 1, [0022 -0028] ‘… Once the reduced-dimensionality vector(s) are computed, the clustering component 110 can apply a clustering algorithm to the reduced-dimensionality vector(s) to generate one or more clusters of features …’,
PNG
media_image3.png
609
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); and generating an output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters (Brock, FIG.5,
PNG
media_image4.png
426
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0035-0039] ‘the addition of an exemplar can include selecting the exemplar corresponding to a sample contained in the cluster of the second plurality of clusters. The cluster in the second plurality of clusters can have a predetermined radius. The pairwise distances between features contained in the cluster of the second plurality of clusters can be less than the predetermined radius …’, ‘… the exemplar can be selected based on a randomly selected point in each cluster …’)”.
Brock does not explicitly detail “determining an intermediate set of similarity samples; … based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples”.
However Lu teaches “determining an intermediate set of similarity samples; … based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples (Lu, FIG.2, Claim 1, [0027] ‘generating a compact query feature vector for a query object, … twisted compact features vectors being generated by applying respective random shuffling permutations to the compact query feature vector …’,
PNG
media_image5.png
719
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Brock and Lu before him or her, to modify the clustering system and method of Brock to include further details on sample generation as shown in Lu.
The motivation for doing so would have been for generating index structure for large scale unstructured data (Lu, Abstract).
Claims 1 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 15. The arguments as given above for claim 15 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 1 and 8, therefore the rejection of claim 15 are applied accordingly.
With regards to claim 12, Brock in view of Lu teaches “The computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein generating the output set of similarity samples based on the plurality of clusters comprises: selecting a preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters (Brock, FIG.5, ‘… for each cluster, a number of points proportional to the spread of the cluster can be selected as exemplar(s)…’)”.
With regards to claim 13, Brock in view of Lu teaches “The computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the selecting the preset number of similarity samples from each of the plurality of clusters: for each of the plurality of cluster, selecting the preset number of similarity samples having the shortest distance with the sample (Brock, FIG.5, [0035-0039] ‘the addition of an exemplar can include selecting the exemplar corresponding to a sample contained in the cluster of the second plurality of clusters. The cluster in the second plurality of clusters can have a predetermined radius. The pairwise distances between features contained in the cluster of the second plurality of clusters can be less than the predetermined radius …’, ‘… the exemplar can be a point in each cluster that is particularly representative of that cluster (e.g., if the pint is relatively close to the center of the cluster)…’)”.
With regards to claim 14, Brock in view of Lu teaches “The computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the sample is a software code (Brock, FIG.1, [0005] ‘… performing analysis of data to detect presence of malicious code …’,
PNG
media_image6.png
654
887
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)”.
Claims 5-7, and 19-20 are substantially similar to claims 12-14. The arguments as given above for claims 12-14 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 5-7, and 19-20, therefore the rejection of claims 12-14 are applied accordingly.
The combined teaching described above will be referred as Brock + Lu hereafter.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al., US-PGPUB NO.20180150724A1 [hereafter Brock] in view of Lu et al, US-PGPUB NO.20190272344A1 [hereafter Lu] in view of Yan et al., “K-nearest neighbor search by random projection forestes”, IEEE Transactions on big data, Vol.7, No.1, January-March 2021 [hereafter Yan].
With regards to claim 9, Brock + Lu teaches
“The computer-readable medium of claim 8”.
Brock + Lu does not explicitly detail “wherein the intermediate set of similarity samples is determined by using a k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm”.
However Yan teaches “wherein the intermediate set of similarity samples is determined by using a k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm (Yan, FIG.1-2, 2 The design of PrForests, Algorithm 1-3,
PNG
media_image7.png
344
408
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Brock + Lu and Yan before him or her, to modify the clustering system and method of Brock + Lu to include k-NN algorithm as shown in Yan.
The motivation for doing so would have been for generating index structure for knowledge discovery (Yan, Abstract).
With regards to claim 10, Brock + Lu teaches “The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the generating a plurality of clusters based on the intermediate sets of similarity samples comprises: performing a clustering operation based on an initial dimensionality space of the similarity samples in the intermediate set (Brock, FIG.5, [0035] ‘… applying a second clustering algorithm to one or more clusters in the first plurality of clusters using the original dimensionality ..’)”.
With regards to claim 11, Brock + Lu teaches
“The computer-readable medium of claim 10”.
Brock + Lu does not explicitly detail “wherein the clustering operation is based on k-means algorithm”.
However Yan teaches “wherein the clustering operation is based on k-means algorithm (Yan, 4 Related Work, ‘Many methods are around for space partitioning, such as k-means tress [34]…’, Table 1)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Brock + Lu and Yan before him or her, to modify the clustering system and method of Brock + Lu to include k-means as shown in Yan.
The motivation for doing so would have been for generating index structure for knowledge discovery (Yan, Abstract).
Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are substantially similar to claims 9-11. The arguments as given above for claims 9-11 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 2-4 and 16-18, therefore the rejection of claims 9-11 are applied accordingly.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is recorded on Form PTO-892. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 (c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action, with particular attention paid to:
Hyvonen et al., “Fast nearest neighbor search through sparse random projections and voting”, 2016 IEEE International conference on big data, 2016 [hereafter Hyvonen] shows nearest neighbor search and k-mean clustering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights