DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on March 31, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are cancelled
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are amended
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are pending
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on March 31, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on March 31, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 1-20 for being directed to an abstract idea are updated and maintained.
Applicant argued on pages 3-4 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that the claim elements “over a network”, “loaded from a database”, “updating the memory and the database”, “updating cluster IDs of the elements that are re-associated in the database”, “processing online”, “contained in a hash table”, “add the new element object to the hash table”, and “tagged with cluster identifications (IDs)” inextricably tie the claimed invention to computer technology. The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in details below, the high-level recitation of generic computer components such as “a memory”, “a database”, and “a network” may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, because the claim recites a clustering method that can be performed in the human mind and does not include any other limitations that integrate the clustering method into a practical application that is inextricably tied to computer technology. The element “a hash table” uses a hash function to index data for efficient retrieval. It is a mathematical concept that is mentally performable with or without the aid of a pen and paper. Moreover, “a hash table”, when recited at a high level of generality and used to store information by its conventional function, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Associating a data element with cluster identifications (IDs) is analogous to organizing object items such as books to different categories that is not necessarily tied to computer technology. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argued on page 7 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that prior systems and methods are limited to working only in an offline mode while the claimed invention provides improvement via an additive online complete-linkage clustering, improving time efficiency. The examiner disagrees.
The examiner notes, other than reciting “processing online …”, the claim does not distinguish between online and offline processing. It is unclear what steps are being processed online and what steps are being processed offline and what specifically the claimed invention is doing differently from prior art that contributes to the online processing and the alleged improvement. Because the claim does not reflect the alleged technical improvement, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner does not respond to Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that all the limitations recited in claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, conventional features, because Applicant only made a blanket statement and didn’t provide any reasoning with supporting evidence.
Please refer to the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3: “… an at least one …” appears to contain a typo.
Claim 8, line 5: “… an at least one …” appears to contain a typo.
Claim 8, lines 13-14: “the memory” in “… wherein the memory stores …” should read “the second memory”.
Claim 15, line 4: “… an at least one …” appears to contain a typo.
Claim 19, lines 1-2: since Claim 18 is cancelled, “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 18” should now depend on Claim 15 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1, 2, and 5), a machine (claims 8, 9, and 12), and a manufacture (claims 15, 16, and 19). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“determining whether a vector of the incoming element is contained in a hash table”, “determining whether a distance of the incoming element to the nearest existing element that is found is above a clustering threshold”, and “determining, based on determining the distance is not above the clustering threshold, whether distances from the incoming element to contents of a cluster of the nearest existing element that is found are all below the clustering threshold” may be characterized as a mental process, because both determining whether a vector of the incoming element already exists in a hash table and determining the distance between two elements is below or above a threshold value involve evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind.
“responsive to determining the vector of the incoming element is not contained in the hash table, creating a new element object associated with the incoming element and adding the new element object to the hash table”, “creating, based on determining the distance is above the clustering threshold, a new cluster and associating the new cluster to the incoming element …”, “associating, based on determining the distances from the incoming element to the contents of the cluster of the nearest existing element that is found are all below the clustering threshold, the incoming element to the cluster of the nearest existing element that is found”, “creating another cluster …”, and “re-associating elements of the first cluster into the another cluster …” may be characterized as a mental process, because both creating a new element object for an incoming element and adding the new element object to a hash table and creating a cluster and associating an element to the cluster can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper.
“searching … for a nearest existing element with respect to the incoming element …” is recited at a high level of generality. It can be practically performed in the human mind thus may be characterized as a mental process. The additional elements “a memory” and “wherein the memory stores cluster structures of clusters of elements loaded from a database comprising an elements table with elements tagged with cluster identifications (IDs)” recite general computer components “a memory” and “a database”, which are also referenced in the “creating … a new cluster …”, “creating another cluster …”, and “re-associating elements of the first cluster …” limitations. Because in all the places both “a memory” and “a database” are merely used as a generic storage and there are no other limitations that recite how what is stored in the memory and database is being used in a way that integrates the claimed invention into a practical application, these limitations may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“processing … via original complete-linkage clustering, based on determining the distances from the incoming element to the contents of the nearest existing element that is found are not all below the clustering threshold, elements of the cluster of the nearest existing element that is found together with the incoming element, wherein the processing generates a first cluster and a second cluster, wherein the first cluster is smaller than the second cluster” may be characterized as a mental process, because these clustering and classifying operations are an evaluation or judgement that can be practically performed in the human mind. That the processing to generate the clusters is performed “via original complete-linkage algorithm” does not negate the mental aspect of the limitation. It is not clear what or how this “original complete-linkage algorithm” is performed, but the plain meaning of an “algorithm” is merely a set of rules that are followed. One can mentally generate the clusters by following such rules. The newly added element “online by the hierarchical clustering service” merely generally links the abstract idea to an online application as discussed further below.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“for additive online complete-linkage clustering” in the preamble, “online by the hierarchical clustering service”, and “by a hierarchical clustering service from an at least one computing device over a network” element may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to an online application, see MPEP 2106.05(h) because the claim does not recite how specifically the claimed invention is integrated into such an online application.
“receiving … an incoming element” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“… wherein the memory stores … from a database …”. The memory storing information may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activities, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“a memory”, “a database”, “… and updating the memory and the database”, “… in the memory and updating the database”, “… in the database”, and “a processor” (claim 8 and 15), as discussed above, may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“receiving … an incoming element”. Receiving an element is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)].
“… wherein the memory stores … from a database …” is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 each recite additional elements of “assigning … the incoming element”. These functions can be practically performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper, hence, may be characterized as a mental process.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 each recite additional elements of “setting … a cluster identification of the incoming element to a cluster ID of a parent cluster …”. These functions can be practically performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper, hence, may be characterized as a mental process.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights