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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Claim objection are withdrawn.
Double patenting rejection are withdrawn.
Claim rejections 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 refers to “transferring each of the plurality of subsets of first number of data points to a respective one of a plurality of computation devices;” and creating (through the elements of the claim) an “analysis landmark set based on a combination of expanded sub-subsets of expanded landmarks while maintaining relationships within the first number of data points, the analysis landmark set being more computationally efficient.” While data can be divided in any number of ways which destroy relationships within the data, here, there is a specific combination of elements where the analysis landmark set is created such that the relationships within the original data set are maintained (i.e., thereby creating a computationally efficient data set that maintains relationships within the data). Again, in claim 1 as a whole, the claim recites the improvement (which is referenced in the specification) as well as the steps necessary for the improvement (i.e., creation of an analysis landmark set that is computationally efficient while maintaining relationships within the first [original] data set) (Remarks, pages 14-15).
Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP recites that:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), Emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully submits that the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner such as the analysis landmark set being more computationally efficient. In addition, the claims do not provide sufficient details to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the claims do not provide sufficient details for a person of ordinary skill in the art how to create an analysis landmark set based on a combination of expanded sub-subsets of expanded landmarks while maintaining relationships within the first number of data points. Therefore, the examiner should not determine the claims improve technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 9 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions” and therefore is a manufacture.
Claim 17 recites “A system”. The claim recites the system comprising at least one processor and memory and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the limitation “selecting” which specifically recites “for each of the plurality of subsets of data points by an associated computation device of the plurality of computation devices: selecting, by the associated computation device, a group of data points from a particular subset of data points to generate a first sub-subset of landmarks;” This limitation are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a plurality of “computation devices” and an “analysis server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper selecting a group of data points from the subset of data points to generate a first sub-subset of landmarks.
Furthermore, the claims recite the limitations “adding”, “calculating”, “identifying”, “identifying” and “adding” which specifically recite “adding, by the associated computation device, a non-landmark data point of the particular subset of data points to the first sub-subset of landmarks to create an expanded sub-subset of landmarks, adding the non-landmark data points comprising: calculating first data point distances between each non-landmark data point and each landmark; identifying a shortest data point distance from among the first data point distances for each non-landmark data point; identifying a particular non-landmark data point with a longest first landmark distance of all the shortest data path distances; and adding the particular non-landmark data point to the first sub-subset of landmarks to expand the first sub-subset of landmarks to generate an expanded set of landmarks and until the expanded sub-subset of the expanded landmarks reaches a predetermined number of members, repeat adding the non-landmark data points;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a plurality of “computation devices” and an “analysis server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “adding”, “calculating”, “identifying”, “identifying” and “adding” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper calculating first data point distances between each non-landmark data point and each landmark, identifying a shortest data point distance from among the first data point distances, identifying a particular non-landmark data point with a longest first landmark distance of all the shortest data path distances; and adding the particular non-landmark data point to the first sub-subset of landmarks to generate an expanded set of landmarks until the expanded sub-subset reaches a predetermined number of members.
Moreover, the claims recite the limitations “creating”, “generating”, “clustering” “creating” and “connecting” which specifically recite “creating an analysis landmark set based on a combination of expanded sub-subsets of expanded landmarks while maintaining relationships within the first number of data points, the analysis landmark set being more computationally efficient;” “generating a cover of the mathematical reference space to divide the mathematical reference space into overlapping subsets;” “clustering the mapped landmark points of the analysis landmark set based on the subsets of the cover in the mathematical reference space;” “creating a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes being based on the clustering of the mapped landmark points of the analysis landmark set, each landmark point of the analysis landmark set being a member of at least one node;” and “connecting at least two of the plurality of nodes with an edge if the at least two of the plurality of nodes share at least one landmark point of the analysis landmark set as a member.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a plurality of “computation devices” and an “analysis server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “creating”, “generating”, “clustering” “creating” and “connecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper creating an analysis landmark set based on a combination of sub-subsets of expanded landmarks, dividing a reference space into overlapping subsets, clustering/grouping the mapped landmark points of the analysis landmark set based on the overlapping subsets, creating a plurality of nodes based on the clustering of the mapped landmark points of the analysis landmark set, and connecting at least two of the plurality of nodes with an edge if the at least two of the plurality of nodes share at least one landmark point.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). In addition, the limitation “calculating” are processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 1 recites the additional elements “receiving a first number of data points, each data point of the first number of data points being a member of at least one of a plurality of subsets of the first number of data points;” and “transferring each of the plurality of subsets of large number of data points to a respective one of a plurality of computation devices;” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites the additional element “performing a similarity function on the analysis landmark set to map landmark points of the analysis landmark set to a mathematical reference space;” This limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 1 recites the limitations “receiving a first number of data points, each data point of the first number of data points being a member of at least one of a plurality of subsets of the first number of data points;” and “transferring each of the plurality of subsets of large number of data points to a respective one of the plurality of computation devices;” The limitations amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above, the additional elements of using a plurality of “computation devices” and an “analysis server” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “for each data point that is both a member of the first number of data points but is not a member of the analysis landmark set: determining a distance between that data point and all landmarks of the analysis landmark set; identifying a closest landmark of the analysis landmark set to that data point; comparing a distance between the closest landmark of the analysis landmark set and that data point to a node threshold; if the distance between the closest landmark of the analysis landmark set and that data point is greater than the node threshold, generating a new node including that data point as a member of the new node; and if the distance the distance between the closest landmark of the analysis landmark set and that data point is less than the node threshold, adding that data point as a member of a node that includes the closest landmark of the analysis landmark set” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “for each data point that is both a member of the first number of data points but is not a member of the analysis landmark set: determining a distance between that data point and all landmarks of the analysis landmark set; identifying a predetermined number of closest landmarks of the analysis landmark set to that data point; identifying a node which includes a majority of the predetermined number of closest landmarks of the analysis landmark set as members; and adding that data point as a member of the node that includes a majority of the predetermined number of closest landmarks of the analysis landmark set as members” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “creating a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes being based on the clustering of the mapped landmarks of the analysis landmark set, each landmark point of the analysis landmark set being a member of at least one node; connecting at least two of the plurality of nodes with an edge if the at least two of the plurality of nodes share at least one landmark point of the analysis landmark set as a member; and generating a visualization of the plurality of nodes and edges” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “determining the predetermined number of members of the expanded sub-subset of the expanded set of landmarks based on constraints of the at least one of the plurality of computation devices or an analysis server” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on the claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “the determination of the predetermined number of members of the expanded sub-subset of the expanded set of landmarks is based, at least in part, on a determination of a predetermined number of members of the analysis landmark set” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “selecting, by the associated computation device, the group of data points from the subset of data points to generate the first sub-subset of landmarks is performed randomly” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “generating a topological representation using the analysis landmark set and topological data analysis; generating a first visualization of the topological representation; locating the new biological data point in a location in the topological representation; and generating a second visualization of the topological representation, the second visualization including the new biological data point in the location;” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim also recites the additional elements “generating a first visualization of the topological representation; and receiving one or more assessments of possible clinical outcomes for the new patient based on the location of the new biological data point in the topological representation.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art is Cardno (US 2011/0261049) discloses a mathematical calculation of a contiguous surface from discrete data. Traditional methods of calculation of this contiguous surface involve applying a formula to the data such as gravity model, these gravity models create visual displays of data that enable much higher density of information to be shown. FIG. 11E shows the value R on the plot of the surface points, and shows the distance of the farthest surface point to the interpolation point.
The prior art Imamura et al. (US 20080155119) discloses that a plurality of landmarks selected from a source weighed graph on which a path search is performed; and the shortest path lengths between landmarks, and the shortest path lengths from vertices to landmarks adjacent to the respective vertices are calculated, and are stored in a memory device so as to be later referable. Routines for calculating upper and lower limits of the shortest path length corresponding to two vertices v and w are prepared by using expressions derived from quadrangle inequalities formed of the two vertices v and w as well as two landmarks adjacent to the respective vertices v and w.
However, the prior arts do not appear to teach identifying a particular non-landmark data point with a longest first landmark distance of all the shortest data path distances; and adding the particular non-landmark data point to the first sub-subset of landmarks to expand the first sub-subset of landmarks to generate an expanded set of landmarks; and until the expanded sub-subset of the expanded landmarks reaches a predetermined number of members, repeat adding the non-landmark data points.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20050198328) teaches location information for a node may be determined by measuring distances to global landmark nodes and local landmark nodes that are proximally located to the node. The distance to the local landmark nodes can be obtained with little or no added messaging overhead if these local landmark nodes can respond to measurement traffic, such as a probe packet for measuring round-trip-time.
Daubert et al. (US 20030120421) teaches the asset location points that are within a specified distance from any of the points in the point set are added to the point set to complete the landmark representation. The geo-image data and landmark representation data are combined to provide high resolution asset location information.
Chrapko et al. (US 2015/0026120) discloses that systems and methods are provided for visualizing relationship data, such as connectivity information, associated with nodes within a network community. The visualizations are rendered such that a user viewing or interacting with the visualization can gain meaningful information about their relationship with other contacts in the network community.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm 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, Vital Pierre can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162
September 25, 2025