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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Response, filed 12/10/2025, amended claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12 & 17. Claims 18 & 19 were canceled. Therefore, claims 1-17 & 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and supporting arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 101 rejection of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 12-17 & 20, set forth at pages 12-18 of the Remarks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 12, the recited limitations still recite abstract ideas that are not integrated into a practical application. Regardless of the separate processing of semantic data, it is still a criteria used for matching evaluation and the basis for cluster membership.
Regarding amended claim 17, the recited limitations still recite abstract ideas that are not integrated into a practical application. Regardless of the subsequent processing of additional clustering criteria, it is still a criteria used for membership evaluation and the basis for new cluster membership.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 & 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “if”. This renders the claim limitations unclear because it is unknown whether one or more limitations should be interpreted as optional. This should be amended to positively recite the satisfying of a recited condition, such as by substituting it with “whether”.
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of vectors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the unlocking criteria”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The examiner suggests amending this to recite “wherein the cluster unlocking criteria” for consistency with the rest of the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the plurality of clusters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear if this is intended to refer back to the first or second plurality of clusters.
Claim 2 recites “the second cluster”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 9 recites “and/or”. This renders the claim limitations unclear because it is unknown whether one or more limitations should be interpreted as optional. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets this as reciting “or”.
Claim 12 recites “the vector representations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the clustering results”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
The remaining claims, not separately identified above, are rejected at least for their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
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 12-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite non-transitory computer readable media. These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 12 recites “generating a vector for each of a first plurality of content items, wherein each vector represents a set of attributes associated with a corresponding content item; executing a clustering algorithm to assign, based at least in part on the plurality of vectors, each of the first plurality of content items to corresponding clusters of a first plurality of clusters; wherein the clustering algorithm evaluates a first content item and assigns the first content item to a first cluster of the first plurality of clusters; wherein the clustering algorithm evaluates a second content item and does not assign the second content item to the first cluster; determining that a first label associated with the first content item matches a second label associated with the second content item using semantic label information; in response at least in part to determining that the first label and the second label match, assigning the second content item to the first cluster; wherein the semantic label information used to determine the match between the first label and the second label comprises semantic information that is processed separately from the vector representations.”
Independent claim 17 recites “performing a first execution of a clustering algorithm to assign each of a first plurality of content items to corresponding clusters of a first plurality of clusters; assigning, to a first cluster of the first plurality of clusters, a first content item of the first plurality of content items; wherein a second content item of the first plurality of content items is evaluated by the clustering algorithm during the first execution such that the clustering algorithm does not assign the second content item to any cluster during the first execution and the second content item remains unclustered after the first execution; performing a second execution of the clustering algorithm to assign each of a second plurality of content items to corresponding clusters of the first plurality of clusters; wherein the second plurality of content items comprises a third content item that is evaluated by the clustering algorithm during the second execution such that the clustering algorithm does not assign the third content item to any cluster during the second execution, and the third content item remains unclustered after the second execution; subsequent to performing the second execution, identifying one or more clustering criteria associated with the second content item and the third content item; responsive to identifying the clustering criteria, establishing a new cluster, wherein the first plurality of clusters does not include the new cluster; and assigning the second content item and the third content item to the new cluster by performing a post-execution operation that updates the clustering results without re-executing the clustering algorithm for the second content item and the third content item.”
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind or a human using pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Dependent claims 13-16 & 20 recite limitations that are further extensions of the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. These additional elements include: one or more hardware processors executing instructions that cause the performance of operations.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 & 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) & 101, as applicable above, set forth in this Office action.
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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 03/10/2026