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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 1/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, 19-20 have been amended.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-12 are a method, claims 13-19 are a computer readable medium (see rejection above), and claim 20 is a system claim. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 13 and 20, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
transforming an n-dimensional embedding from an n-dimensional embedding space to a lower dimensional embedding space, the n-dimensional embedding space containing a set of n-dimensional embeddings and the lower dimensional embedding space containing a set of lower dimensional embeddings transformed from at least a subset of the set of n-dimensional embeddings including the first n-dimensional embedding;
processing the set of lower dimensional embeddings to generate a compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings; and
transmitting a signal to cause a display of a remote user device to output a navigational user interface (UI) having a plurality of selectable items according to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings.
These limitations, transforming an n-dimensional embedding from an n-dimensional embedding space to a lower dimensional embedding space, the n-dimensional embedding space containing a set of n-dimensional embeddings and the lower dimensional embedding space containing a set of lower dimensional embeddings transformed from at least a subset of the set of n-dimensional embeddings including the first n-dimensional embedding; processing the set of lower dimensional embeddings to generate a compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings; and under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The claimed invention recites the transformation of embeddings from n-dimensional embedding to a lower dimensional embedding which can be done by the human mind through computations with or without pen and paper. The processing of the set of lower dimensional embeddings to generate a configuration of spaced items could also be drawn by pen and paper by the human after the computation was performed. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). Additionally, it is noted that implementation of the mental process by a computer as a tool does not preclude the claims from reciting a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C).
The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
transmitting a signal to cause a display of a remote user device to output a navigational user interface (UI) having a plurality of selectable items according to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings.
A non- transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to: (claim 13)
An apparatus comprising: a processing unit communicatively coupled to a display device, the processing unit being configured to: (claim 20)
The additional elements of A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to: (claim 13); An apparatus comprising: a processing unit communicatively coupled to a display device, the processing unit being configured to: (claim 20) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore dos not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of “transmitting a signal to cause a display of a remote user device to output a navigational user interface (UI) having a plurality of selectable items according to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by transmitting data for display on an interface (i.e. transmitting data) - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
The step of “transmitting a signal to cause a display of a remote user device to output a navigational user interface (UI) having a plurality of selectable items according to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings” of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (paragraph 0071) does not provide any indication that the interface is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) court decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 13, and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 13, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recite wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings represents a configuration of evenly spaced lower dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings has a centroid item at the center of the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites further comprising: prior to transforming the n-dimensional embedding from the n-dimensional embedding space to the lower dimensional embedding space: obtaining a first n-dimensional embedding corresponding to a first selected item, the n-dimensional embedding being in the n-dimensional embedding space, wherein the first-n dimensional embedding corresponds to the centroid item. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein transforming the n-dimensional embedding space to the low dimensional embedding space comprises: applying a dimensionality reduction on the n-dimensional embedding space based on one or more features of the first n-dimensional embedding, to generate the low dimensional embedding space. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the dimensionality reduction is: a t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE); a uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP); or a principal component analysis (PCA). The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation would also fall into the enumerated grouping of mathematical calculation as the limitation recites specific computation formulas
Claim 7 recites wherein processing the set of lower dimensional embeddings to generate the compacted configuration oflower dimensional embedding space. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings
Claim 9 recites wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings encodes properties of at least the subset of the set of n-dimensional embeddings, and wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a similarity of the encoded properties for the pair of low dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation would also fall into the enumerated grouping of mathematical calculation as the limitation recites specific computation formulas.
Claim 10 recites, wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a co-purchase measure for the pair of low dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation would also fall into the enumerated grouping of mathematical calculation as the limitation recites specific computation formulas.
Claim 11 recites further comprising: responsive to an input from the user device selecting a second selected item from the plurality of selectable items, updating the centroid to be the second selected item; updating the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings according to the updated centroid; and transmitting another signal to cause the display of the remote user device to update the navigational UI to display an updated plurality of selectable items according to the updated compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of the user device and transmitting to cause the display on a UI, however, as shown in the analysis of the independent claims, this does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim 12 recites wherein updating the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings comprises: updating the low dimensional embedding space by applying a dimensionality reduction on the n-dimensional embedding space based on one or more features of a second n- dimensional embedding representing the second selected item, the updated low dimensional embedding space containing an updated set of low dimensional embeddings including the second n-dimensional embedding; and processing the updated set of low dimensional embeddings to generate the updated compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 14-19 recite parallel claim language and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Solmer US 20140223296).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Solmer discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (claim 1)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to: (claim 13) ([0037])
An apparatus comprising: a processing unit communicatively coupled to a display device, the processing unit being configured to: (claim 20) ([0037])
transforming an n-dimensional embedding from an n-dimensional embedding space to a lower dimensional embedding space, the n-dimensional embedding space containing a set of n- dimensional embeddings and the lower dimensional embedding space containing a set of lower dimensional embeddings transformed from at least a subset of the set of n-dimensional embeddings including the first n-dimensional embedding; [0036] In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, a dimension reduction technique is applied to each document to create one or more semantic compact codes that retain the meaning of the document and have much lower dimensionality than the term space. [0042] In some exemplary embodiments, the N-dimensional compact representation, generated based on the feature-based representation of a document, is denser and has a lower dimensionality than the feature-based representation. In some exemplary embodiments, all elements of the N-dimensional compact representation have meaningful values. Various dimensionality reduction methods can be used to compute the compact representation. and see [0049]
processing the set of lower dimensional embeddings to generate a compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddinqs; and [0045] FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of the document mapping unit 106 shown in FIG. 1, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. In this exemplary embodiment, the document mapping unit 106 has a document projection unit 402, a dense region detection unit 404, and a label generating unit 406. The document projection unit 402 in this exemplary embodiment is configured to obtain certain documents, their corresponding N-dimensional compact representations, and concepts 309 associated with the received documents, and project each of the documents as a point on a K-dimensional map based on its N-dimensional compact representation. The dimensionality K may be determined based on the projection dimension parameters 403 stored in the document mapping unit 106. The projection dimension parameters 403 may include, e.g., two dimensional, three dimensional, determined based on, e.g., the number of points to be projected on to the map. transmitting a signal to cause a display of a remote user device to output a navigational user interface (UI) [0039] In some exemplary embodiments, a display device 120 may be operatively coupled to the system 100. In an exemplary embodiment, a display device 120 may be operatively coupled to the document visualization unit 108 of the system 100, and configured to display the rendered map from the document visualization unit 108. having a plurality of selectable items according to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. [0048] For example, a document/label may be activated when a user places a cursor near its projected document point or the label; a user may perform a click when the cursor is near a projected document point or a rendered label; or when a cursor is placed in a region in the K-dimensional map that is labeled. One or more document points/labels may also be activated when a user selects a region in the K-dimensional map that may include one or more document points and/or one or more labels.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein transforming the n-dimensional embedding space to the low dimensional embedding space comprises: applying a dimensionality reduction on the n-dimensional embedding space based on one or more features of the first n-dimensional embedding, to generate the low dimensional embedding space. [0036] In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, a dimension reduction technique is applied to each document to create one or more semantic compact codes that retain the meaning of the document and have much lower dimensionality than the term space. [0042] In some exemplary embodiments, the N-dimensional compact representation, generated based on the feature-based representation of a document, is denser and has a lower dimensionality than the feature-based representation. In some exemplary embodiments, all elements of the N-dimensional compact representation have meaningful values. Various dimensionality reduction methods can be used to compute the compact representation. and see [0049]
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the dimensionality reduction is: a t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE); a uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP); or a principal component analysis (PCA). [0049] Examples of existing dimension reduction algorithms include t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE), elastic embedding, or locally linear embedding approach.
Regarding claim 9, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings encodes properties of at least the subset of the set of n-dimensional embeddings, [0036] In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, a dimension reduction technique is applied to each document to create one or more semantic compact codes that retain the meaning of the document and have much lower dimensionality than the term space. [0042] In some exemplary embodiments, the N-dimensional compact representation, generated based on the feature-based representation of a document, is denser and has a lower dimensionality than the feature-based representation. In some exemplary embodiments, all elements of the N-dimensional compact representation have meaningful values. Various dimensionality reduction methods can be used to compute the compact representation. and see [0049] and wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a similarity of the encoded properties for the pair of low dimensional embeddings. [0045] While the projected document points in the K-dimensional map maintain the relative distances among the retrieved documents in the N-dimensional space so that documents that are close together in the N-dimensional space are also close together in the K-dimensional map space, the projected document points may also be projected to satisfy an additional dimension, e.g., publication date, along a separate dimension.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solmer (US 20140223296) in view of “UMAP” (NPL reference).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above. While Solmer discloses the dimension reduction techniques, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings represents a configuration of evenly spaced lower dimensional embeddings.
However “UMAP” teaches wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings represents a configuration of evenly spaced lower dimensional embeddings. UMAP is a fairly flexible non-linear dimension reduction algorithm. It seeks to learn the manifold structure of your data and find a low dimensional embedding that preserves the essential topological structure of that manifold (page 2). and see Because the data is evenly spread we actually cover the underlying manifold and don’t end up with clumping. In other words, all this theory works well assuming that the data is uniformly distributed over the manifold. (page 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensional reduction in Solmer to include wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings represents a configuration of evenly spaced lower dimensional embeddings, as taught in UMAP, in order to result in better conveyed data across the broader structure of data (page 2).
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solmer (US 20140223296) in view of Severn (US11238083).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above. While Solmer discloses the dimension reduction techniques resulting in a lower dimensional embedding for a set of data, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings has a centroid item at the center of the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings.
However Severn teaches:
wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings has a centroid item at the center of the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. (shown in the arrangement of Figure 31 and 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presented arrangement of lower dimensional embedding of Solmer to include wherein the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings has a centroid item at the center of the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings, as taught in Severn, in order to display a limited set of information to the user by gathering the information and summarizing the user's interests to provide a limited set of valuable information to the user. (Col. 3 lines 37-40)
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Solmer in view of Severn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Solmer further discloses: prior to transforming the n-dimensional embedding from the n-dimensional embedding space to the lower dimensional embedding space: obtaining a first n-dimensional embedding corresponding to a first selected item (interpreted as requested retrieved document), the n-dimensional embedding being in [[an]] the n-dimensional embedding space, [0038] FIG. 1 illustrates one exemplary embodiment of a system 100 for visualizing documents, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. The system 100 may include a document abstraction unit 102, a document representation database 103, a document retrieving unit 104, a document mapping unit 106, and a document visualization unit 108, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. The document abstraction unit 102 may be configured to receive a set of documents 101 and generate and archive an N-dimensional compact representation and a set of relevant concepts for each document in the document representation database 103. The document representation database 103 may be operatively coupled to the document abstraction unit 102 and the document retrieving unit 104. The document retrieving unit 104 may be configured to retrieve certain documents and the corresponding N-dimensional compact representations and relevant concepts, from the document representation database 103.
While Solmer discloses the presentation of the items in an arrangement based on similarity, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first-n dimensional embedding corresponds to the centroid item
However Severn teaches:
wherein the first-n dimensional embedding corresponds to the centroid item Col. 3 lines 15-20 These electronic “catalogs” can be highly dimensional spaces (e.g., an embedding space) comprised of representations of products. Based on the information gathered from the user, various aspects of the products represented in the highly dimensional spaces can be considered for determining which products to present to the user. And see example from Figure 31 and 34
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presented arrangement of lower dimensional embedding of Solmer to include wherein the first-n dimensional embedding corresponds to the centroid item, as taught in Severn, in order to display a limited set of information to the user by gathering the information and summarizing the user's interests to provide a limited set of valuable information to the user. (Col. 3 lines 37-40)
Regarding claim 11, Solmer in view of Severn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Solmer further discloses: responsive to an input from the user device selecting a second selected item from the plurality of selectable items, […] updating the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings FIG. 13 represents the functionality of the disclosed system and method which allows generation of a query based on interactions between a user and a K-dimensional map so as to assist a user to effectively retrieve documents of his/her actual interests. and see user interface interactions in [0048]
transmitting another signal to cause the display of the remote user device to update the navigational UI to display an updated plurality of selectable items according to the updated compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. [0074] Moving to 1310, at least one new document is retrieved, based on the automatically generated second query. Each new document is represented by an N-dimensional compact representation and associated with some concept(s). In this exemplary embodiment, a concept associated with a new document may be a new concept not currently associating with any existing documents on the K-dimensional map, or may also be a concept that is already associated with some document already projected on the K-dimensional map. Proceeding to 1320, each new document is projected as a point on the K-dimensional map based on its N-dimensional compact representation along with existing documents so that all documents represented by existing document points and the newly projected document points in the K-dimensional map maintain the relative distances among the all documents in the N-dimensional space. When both existing and new documents are projected in the update K-dimensional map, the existing document points may now be mapped to different positions as compared with their previously mapped positions.
While Solmer discloses document visualization, the reference does not expressly disclose:
updating the centroid to be the second selected item; according to the updated centroid
However Severn teaches:
updating the centroid to be the second selected item; according to the updated centroid Col. 3 lines 15-20 These electronic “catalogs” can be highly dimensional spaces (e.g., an embedding space) comprised of representations of products. Based on the information gathered from the user, various aspects of the products represented in the highly dimensional spaces can be considered for determining which products to present to the user. And see example from Figure 31 and 34
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presented arrangement of Solmer to include updating the centroid to be the second selected item; according to the updated centroid, as taught in Severn, in order to display a limited set of information to the user by gathering the information and summarizing the user's interests to provide a limited set of valuable information to the user. (Col. 3 lines 37-40)
Regarding claim 12, Solmer in view of Severn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Solmer further discloses: wherein updating the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings comprises:
updating the low dimensional embedding space by applying a dimensionality reduction on the n-dimensional embedding space based on one or more features of a second n- dimensional embedding representing the second selected item (new document retrieved in [0074]) , the updated low dimensional embedding space containing an updated set of low dimensional embeddings including the second n-dimensional embedding; and [0036] In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, a dimension reduction technique is applied to each document to create one or more semantic compact codes that retain the meaning of the document and have much lower dimensionality than the term space. [0042] In some exemplary embodiments, the N-dimensional compact representation, generated based on the feature-based representation of a document, is denser and has a lower dimensionality than the feature-based representation. In some exemplary embodiments, all elements of the N-dimensional compact representation have meaningful values. Various dimensionality reduction methods can be used to compute the compact representation. and see [0049]
processing the updated set of low dimensional embeddings to generate the updated compacted configuration of[0045] FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of the document mapping unit 106 shown in FIG. 1, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. In this exemplary embodiment, the document mapping unit 106 has a document projection unit 402, a dense region detection unit 404, and a label generating unit 406. The document projection unit 402 in this exemplary embodiment is configured to obtain certain documents, their corresponding N-dimensional compact representations, and concepts 309 associated with the received documents, and project each of the documents as a point on a K-dimensional map based on its N-dimensional compact representation. The dimensionality K may be determined based on the projection dimension parameters 403 stored in the document mapping unit 106. The projection dimension parameters 403 may include, e.g., two dimensional, three dimensional, determined based on, e.g., the number of points to be projected on to the map.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solmer (US 20140223296) in view of Solmer2 (US 12141732).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above. While Solmer discloses a document visualization presentation for lower dimensional embeddings [0036], [0042], [0049, and [0038] , the reference does not expressly disclose:
arranging the set of lower dimensional embeddings in a quantized grid configuration that preserves the spatial relationships between lower dimensional embeddings in the lower dimensional embedding space.
However Solmer2 teaches:
arranging the set of lower dimensional embeddings in a quantized grid configuration that preserves the spatial relationships between lower dimensional embeddings in the lower dimensional embedding space. [Col. 36 lines 20-30] In another embodiment, the quality of a classification code can be measured in the following manner. A two-dimensional mapping may be quantized into a grid of N×N areas (“grid areas”).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify document visualization presentation for lower dimensional embeddings of Solmer to include arranging the set of lower dimensional embeddings in a quantized grid configuration that preserves the spatial relationships between lower dimensional embeddings in the lower dimensional embedding space, as taught in Solmer2, in order to minimize the impact of individual outliers [Col. 36 lines 20-30]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solmer (US 20140223296) in view Borkar (US 20230108916).
Regarding claim 8, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above. While Solmer discloses dimension reduction technique, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings includes a set of 2D embeddings or a set of 3D embeddings
However Borkar teaches:
wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings includes a set of 2D embeddings or a set of 3D embeddings [0113] Embedding module (Module 5): Uses UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) to reduce the dimensionality of a given numerical vector to two dimensions without distorting the global structure of the collection of the numerical vectors. [0114] xxii. Apply UMAP algorithm with the specified parameter settings (the count of neighbours and distance) on the feature vector outputs of previous module to generate a reduced, two-dimensional embedding of the aforementioned numerical vectors. [0115] xxiii. The generated vectors can be visualized in a two-dimensional scatter plot which is faithful to the pairwise proximity or lack thereof of the original high dimensional numerical vectors. [0116] Output the collection of all two-dimensional embedding vectors generated from the input feature vectors.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify document visualization presentation for lower dimensional embeddings of Solmer to include wherein the set of lower dimensional embeddings includes a set of 2D embeddings or a set of 3D embeddings, as taught in Borkar, in order to avoid distorting the global structure of the collection of the numerical vectors ([0113]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solmer (US 20140223296) in view Greenwald US20200273081.
Regarding claim 10, Solmer discloses the limitations set forth above. While Solmer discloses dimension reduction technique, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a co-purchase measure for the pair of low dimensional embeddings.
However Greenwald teaches:
wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a co-purchase measure for the pair of low dimensional embeddings. [0005] To accomplish such an intuitive navigation system, a machine learning system can be trained to develop embeddings of entities in a multi-dimensional latent space, e.g., with an autoencoder trained on listing reproduction error or based on co-click or co-purchase similarities between listings. And see [0021]
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to dimension reduction of Solmer to include wherein a distance between a pair of low dimensional embeddings in the set of low dimensional embeddings represents a co-purchase measure for the pair of low dimensional embeddings, as taught in Greenwald, in order to in order to improve the performance of business key performance indicators (KPIs) ([007])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/20/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Greenwald as the primary reference. Greenwald is merely relied upon for a dependent claim. The new rejection relies on Solmer as the primary reference and Severn is not relied on to teach grid configurations or generating lower dimensional embeddings. These limitations are taught in Solmer and Solmer2. Thereby, the remarks directed to the prior art rejection are considered moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the examiner first asserts the rejection has been updated above to address the claims as amended. With respect to prong 1, the examiner asserts that the arguments directed to the amended claims requiring the processing of high dimensional datasets that could only be performed by a computer and not by pen and paper, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended are not commensurate in scope with the portions of the instant application cited, such as [0040]. Thereby, the remarks are not persuasive as to the claims overcoming the rejection based on the amendment. The examiner has withdrawn the characterization of the claims recited method of organizing human activity based on the claim amendments, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the remarks directed to Examples 39 and 47, the claimed invention does not recite a level of detail to machine learning or AI that is commensurate in scope to that of the asserted examples. The claimed invention recites high level data processing that could be done by pen and paper. Thereby, the assertion the claims recite AI at the technical level to overcome 101 is not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to prong 2, as set forth above, the claimed invention does not recite a level of detail commensurate in scope with the assertion that the claim is required to process a high dimensional data set in a manner requiring the computer or in a manner that improves the ability to explore and navigate through a dataset. Further technical detail would be required in the claims to address this assertion.
As to the cited portions of the specification ([0040-0041]), the resulting solution of improving the speed and efficiency of the computing resources appears to be merely consequential to the claimed invention. That is if the data input into the computer for processing is less, then the resources needed to process the data will be less. This also applies the cited [0005] and amendments directed to the compacted configuration of lower dimensional embeddings. The reduction in the data will consequentially require less processing power. Further the claims are not wholly commensurate in scope with the process required to reduce a high dimensional set of data into the lower set and improve the resulting interface.
With respect to the remarks directed to Desjardins, Examiner notes that the fact patterns of the instant case are different from those set forth in Ex Parte Desjardins, and different fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks, and technical improvements as a result of the model training were identified as reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks. While the ARP in Ex Parte Desjardins determined that these improvements were sufficient to reverse the 101 rejection of the claims at hand in Ex Parte Desjardins, analogous improvements are not apparent in the instant claims. Furthermore, as discussed below, neither Applicant’s specification nor the instant claims set forth analogous improvements. Accordingly, under the analysis set forth according to the MPEP, discussed below, the amended claims stand as ineligible
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2B, the claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth above. As stated the claims do not recited limitations commensurate in scope with the asserted improvement recited in the specification. Further, the level of technical detail as the asserted use of AI is further not detailed and thereby not considered in part of the improvement to the technology or adding of unconventional steps.
For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Relevant Art Not Cited
“Knowledge-aware Complementary Product Representation Learning” discloses using embeddings to determine complimentary products
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/31/2026
Prosecution Insights