DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on May 11, 2026. The application contains claims 1-27.
Claim 11-14 and 16 were previously cancelled
Claims 23 and 24 are cancelled
Claims 26 and 27 are newly added
Claims 1, 8, 15, 17, and 22 are amended
Claims 1-10, 15, 17-22, and 25-27 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on May 11, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objection
The amendments raise new issues. Please refer to the updated claim objections and the 35 USC § 112 claim rejections below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 101 rejections are withdrawn. However, the present application is not in condition for allowance due to the pending claim objections and rejections as set forth in this office action below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a first record” in lines 31-32 and “at least a first record” in line 35. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the first record” recited downstream refers to.
Claim 1 recites “a second record” in line 33 and “a second record” in line 36. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the second record” recited downstream refers to.
Claim 8 recites “a first record” in lines 30-31 and “at least a first record” in line 34. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the first record” recited downstream refers to.
Claim 8 recites “a second record” in line 32 and “a second record” in line 35. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the second record” recited downstream refers to.
Claim 15 recites “a first record” in lines 30-31 and “at least a first record” in line 34. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the first record” recited downstream refers to.
Claim 15 recites “a second record” in line 32 and “a second record” in line 35. Different terms should be used so that it is clear what “the second record” recited downstream refers to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 15, 17-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “selecting a record from each collection, in the set of collections, to include in a reduced set of records, wherein selecting the record from each collection comprises selecting a first record in the collection based on the weight calculated for the first record being greater than the weight calculated for a second record in the collection” in lines 30-33, 29-32, and 29-32, respectively. This limitation is inconsistent with the disclosure in the originally filed specification. The specification in paragraph [0041] states “The highest-weighted record for each collection can then be, by the reducer 120, compiled into a reduced record set comprising the highest-weighted record from each collection evaluated by the ranker 118”. Selecting a record based on the record having a weight higher than another record is different from selecting a record with the highest weight. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “analyzing, via the one or more hardware processors and based on a set of threshold values and a set of weights, the reduced set of records to identify at least a first record selected from a first collection of the set of collections and a second record selected from a second collection of the set of collections, the second record differing that differs from the first record” in lines 34-38, 33-37, and 33-37, respectively. This limitation has no support in the originally filed specification. There are two issues: one, the specification does not disclose analyzing “the reduced set of records” based on “a set of threshold values and a set of weights”; two, the specification states “… analyze the reduced set of records against an original source input" in paragraph [0042], but the claims do not recite an original source input anywhere and the claimed analyses are between records in the reduced set of records. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 26 recites the limitation “… wherein the one or more data-driven weights are assigned to a set of variables based on machine learning …” in lines 3-4. The specification as originally filed does not even mention machine learning anywhere, let alone using machine learning to implement the limitation as recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 27 recites the limitation “… wherein the operations further comprise assigning multiple weights to multiple variables based on a machine learning electronic model …” in lines 1-3. The specification as originally filed does not even mention a machine learning electronic model anywhere, let alone using a machine learning electronic model to implement the limitation as recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-7, 21, 22, and 25-27 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 8.
Dependent claims 17-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 15.
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 1-10, 15, 17-22, and 25-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “the weight calculated for the first record” in line 32, 31, and 31, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “the weight calculated for a second record” in line 33, 32, and 32, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-7, 21, 22, and 25-27 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 8.
Dependent claims 17-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 15.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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