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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 10/02/2025, applicant(s) amen the application as follow:
Claim amended: 1, 11 and 20
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are drawn to eligible subject matter and respectfully request withdrawal of the eligible rejections. Amended claims 1, 11 and 20 do not recite a mental process because they are not practically performed in the human mind, at least because they require “outputting the final cluster subset to display device for displaying the plurality of content items according to the final clustered subset. Thus, claims 1, 11 and 20 are eligible they do not recite a judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The amended claim language “identifying the final clustered subset…” which is a mental process of abstract idea.
Applicant argue “but even if amended claims 1, 11 and 20 do recite an abstract idea (which applicant does not concede), claims 1, 11 and 20 as amended have additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application , or that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, because they show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Specially, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO’s subject-matter eligible analysis as being directed to an integration into a practical application that improves content cluster and displaying on a display device…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. As explained above the processes of identifying are the mental process which is abstract idea.
Applicant argues “first, the mentioned are patentable eligible Step 2A any alleged abstract idea received by the examiner is integrated into the practical application of content…”
Examiner respectfully disagreed the above argument. In Step 2A, the step of receiving… which is the process of obtaining information using the receiving information.
Applicant argues “second, the claims are also eligible under Step 2B because they recite significantly more than my any alleged judicial exception. The amended claims recite “wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of cluster for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold.” Clustering content items across multiple iterations…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The amended claim “wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of cluster for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold” is a mental step of significantly more qualifying in Step 2B.
Applicant argues “Griffith does not disclose or teach the distinguishing features in amended claims. Griffith described that “papers associated with each plurality with each authorship may be linked so that a researcher may easily navigate a research tool integrated with an ADIS process research…”
Please see the new reference for the amended claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d . . Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application includes similar limitations detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding a new content item and removing an existing content item; identifying the data set comprising the plurality of content items, including the update, for clustering across a plurality of iterations for each of one or more levels, each level of clustering comprising a different similarity threshold; performing for each of the one or more levels: computing a similarity score for each of a plurality of pairs of content items; identifying a subset of pairs from the plurality of pairs, wherein the similarity score, for each pair from the subset of pairs, exceeds a similarity threshold for are respective level; and clustering the subset of pairs, for each pair from the subset of pairs that exceed the similarity threshold for the respective level, into a clustered subset based on the similarity score; identifying a final clustered subset comprising the clustered subset after each of the plurality of iterations for each of the one or more levels after the performing has been completed, wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of cluster for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold ; and outputting the final clustered subset to a display device for displaying the plurality of content items according to the final clustered subset, responsive to the update. The 905 also includes repeating the computing the similarity score, the identifying the subset, and the clustering the subset for each of the plurality of iterations for the respective level, for each subsequent iteration at the respective level. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation of 905 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitations
“detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding a new content item and removing an existing content items” is a mental process.
"identifying the data set comprising the plurality of content items, including the update, for cluster across a plurality of iteration for each of one or more levels, each level of clustering comprising a different similarity threshold” is a mental process.
Identifying a subset of pairs from the plurality of pair, wherein the similarity score, for each pair from the subset of pair, exceeds a similarity threshold for a respective level after the performing has been completed, wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on deduplication threshold” is a mental process.
“Identifying a final clustered subset comprising the clustered subset after each of the plurality of iteration for each of the one or more levels after the performing has been completed, wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold” is an mental process.
The processes which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a tangible, no-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, the method and a computer device comprising at least one processor and tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions... which can be performed by a user using a generic computer as an insignificant data gathering step, performed by an off the shelf tool, generating and outputting the generate answer to complex question as insignificant extra/post-solution activity. The user is performing the mental steps of selecting inputted information for processing, by using the computer as a generic tool. See MPEP 2106. 04. (a)(2).III.C. , 2106.05(a),2106.05(c)-(d) II.
“computing similar score for each of a plurality of pairs of content items” is generalization calculation process.
“clustering the subpairs, for each pair from the subset of pairs that exceed the similarity threshold for the respective level, into a clustered subset based on the similar score” is a process for organizing data into groups based on a value.
“output the final clustered subset to display device for displaying the plurality of content items according to the final clustered subset responsive to the update” is an process to provided data to the user.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)-Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2 and12, the limitation "determining that the final clustered subset comprises a first content item from the plurality of content items included in two or more clusters of the final clustered subset" is a mental process which is abstract idea.
The limitation "outputting the final clustered subset for display, wherein the first content item appears in each of the two or more clusters" do not include additional elements to amount to significantly more, rather information are entered by the user.
As to claims 3 and 13, the limitations "determining a first content item of the plurality of content items was clustered into a first cluster during a first iteration at a first level; and determining the first content item was clustered into a second cluster during a subsequent iteration at the first level" are the mental processes which is abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14, the limitations "determining a first content item of the plurality of content items was clustered into a first cluster during a first iteration at a second level; and determining the first content item was clustered into a second cluster during a subsequent iteration at the second level" are the metal processes which is an abstract idea.
As to claims 5 and 15, the limitations "determining that one or more of the plurality of content items were not clustered as part of the clustering the subset of pairs" is the mental process which is an abstract idea.
As to claims 6 and 16, the limitations "determining that the plurality of iterations is based on identifying a data state" is a mental process which is an abstract idea.
As to claims 7 and 17, the limitation "determining, after determining the clustered subset, whether the data state has been achieved" are the metal processes which is an abstract idea.
The limitation "wherein if the data state has been achieved, performing the identifying the final clustered subset is performed, and wherein if the data state has not yet been achieved, repeating the computing the similarity score, the identifying the subset, and the clustering the subset for each of the plurality of iterations for the respective level, for each subsequent iteration at the respective level" are the additional elements which is insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 8 and 19, the limitation "determining, after determining the clustered subset, that the data state has been achieved" is the mental process which is an abstract idea. The limitation "performing the identifying the plurality of pairs for a next level of the one or more levels" is the additional element which is insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 9 and 19, the limitations "a second similarity threshold for a second level is less than a first similarity threshold for a first level" is a mental process which is an abstract idea.
As to claim 10, the limitation "the plurality of content items include a plurality of multimedia content items, and wherein the outputting comprises outputting the final clustered subset via a streaming media device configured to provide the plurality of multimedia content”
5. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith (Pub. No US 2008/0275859 A1) in view of BOKOBZA et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0316099 A1) and further in view of Colalillo et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0078566 A)
As to claim 1, Griffith discloses a computer-implemented method for clustering a plurality of content items of a data set, comprising: identifying the data set comprising the plurality of content items, including the update, for clustering across a plurality of iterations for each of one or more levels, each level of clustering comprising a different similarity threshold (threshold is assign to or determined level) (paragraph 0054); performing for each of the one or more levels: computing a similarity score for each of a plurality of pairs of content items (similarity score) (paragraph 0054); identifying a subset of pairs from the plurality of pairs, wherein the similarity score, for each pair from the subset of pairs, exceeds a similarity threshold for a respective level (threshold) (paragraph 0054); and clustering the subset of pairs, for each pair from the subset of pairs that exceed the similarity threshold for the respective level (sub cluster processes) (paragraph 0064), into a clustered subset based on the similarity score (score object and link sufficiently similar object) (paragraph 0054); identifying a final clustered subset comprising the clustered subset after each of the plurality of iterations for each of the one or more levels after the performing has been completed; and outputting the final clustered subset for display, responsive to the update (subset) (paragraph 0054).
Griffith does not explicitly disclose detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding a new content item and removing an existing content item and wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold; however, Colalillo discloses detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding a new content item and removing an existing content item (the promotion event application circuitry 106 facilities display of detected event in an approachable user interface that focuses on important events and updates across a market participant's product as well as those of competitors...) (paragraph 0045). This suggests detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding anew content item and removing an existing content item. Furthermore, BOKOBZA discloses wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold (in sub-step 618, the determined nearest pair of cluster centroids is merged to reduce the set of cluster centroids. For instance, cluster limit evaluator 412 of FIG. 4 is configured to merge the nearest pair of cluster centroid determined in sub-step 616 to reduce the set of cluster centroids) (paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Griffith to include detecting, by at least one computer processor, an update to the plurality of content items, wherein the update comprises one of adding a new content item and removing an existing content item identifying the final clustered subset comprises reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold and as disclosed by Colalillo in order to provide grouping services.
As to claim 2, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the outputting comprises: determining that the final clustered subset comprises a first content item from the plurality of content items included in two or more clusters of the final clustered subset; and outputting the final clustered subset for display, wherein the first content item appears in each of the two or more clusters (tree includes different cluster groups) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 3, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first content item of the plurality of content items was clustered into a first cluster during a first iteration at a first level; and determining the first content item was clustered into a second cluster during a subsequent iteration at the first level (nested within per process block 302, the multi-step per authorship Pair block 304 iteration...) (paragraph 0170).
As to claim 4, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first content item of the plurality of content items was clustered into a first cluster during a first iteration at a second level (cluster tree) (paragraph 0012); and determining the first content item was clustered into a second cluster during a subsequent iteration at the second level (cluster tree includes different iteration) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 5, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the clustering comprises: determining that one or more of the plurality of content items were not clustered as part of the clustering the subset of pairs (disambiguate) (paragraph 0014).
As to claim 6, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of iterations to be performed at each of the one or more levels is unknown at the identifying the data set, and the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining that the plurality of iterations is based on identifying a data state (cluster tree includes different iteration) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 7, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, after determining the clustered subset, whether the data state has been achieved, wherein if the data state has been achieved, performing the identifying the final clustered subset is performed, and wherein if the data state has not yet been achieved, repeating the computing the similarity score, the identifying the subset, and the clustering the subset for each of the plurality of iterations for the respective level, for each subsequent iteration at the respective level (cluster tree includes different iteration) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 8, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, after determining the clustered subset, that the data state has been achieved; and performing the identifying the plurality of pairs for a next level of the one or more levels state (cluster tree includes different iteration) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 9, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a second similarity threshold for a second level is less than a first similarity threshold for a first level (similar threshold) (paragraph 0054).
As to claim 10, Griffith discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of content items includes a plurality of multimedia content items, and wherein the outputting comprises outputting the final clustered subset via a streaming media device configured to provide the plurality of multimedia content items for display (output file) (paragraph 0140).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 11, discloses a system, comprising: one or more memories (database) (paragraph 0083); and at least one processor (processor) (paragraph 0083) each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Griffith discloses a non- transitory computer-readable medium (database) (paragraph 0083) having instructions (software) (paragraph 0083) stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations.
Conclusion
6. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights