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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims amended: 1, 11 and 20
Claims canceled: none
Clams newly added: none
Claims pending; 1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. The argument filed on 07/27/2026 on pages 1-2 has overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
3. 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 “Bokabza does not disclose or teach the distinguish features in the amended claims…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. Please see newly cited reference and the rejection below.
Applicant argues “claim 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory…
The parent application include claim limitation which is slightly different but within the scope of the cluster and reducing the number of clusters to produce the final cluster. Therefore, examiner maintained the rejection.
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
4. 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 and determining an overlap of content item in a first cluster of the clustered subset and in a second cluster of the clustered of the cluster subset, in response to the overlap equal to or greater than a deduplication threshold merging the content items in the first and second cluster into one cluster. 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 Colalillo et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0078566 A1) and further in view of Iragavarapu et al. (Patent No. Us 12,596,681 A1).
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, adding a new item to or removing an existing content from and wherein identifying the final clustered
subset comprises determining an overlap of content items in a first cluster of the clustered subset and in a second cluster of the clustered subset; in response to the overlapping equal to or greater than a deduplication threshold merging the content items in the first and second clusters into one cluster; and reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold.
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, Iragavarapu discloses identifying the final clustered subset comprises determining an overlap of content items in a first cluster of the clustered subset and in a second cluster of the clustered subset; in response to the overlapping equal to or greater than a deduplication threshold merging the content items in the first and second clusters into one cluster; and reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold (if the trunk threshold is met, the processor 104 may merge and refine the preliminary text trunks within the filed group into a finalized text chunk, deduplicate the redundant portion, reorder non-redundant content (col. 16 lines 1-17).
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, adding a new item to or removing an existing content from and wherein identifying the final clustered subset comprises determining an overlap of content items in a first cluster of the clustered subset and in a second cluster of the clustered subset; in response to the overlapping equal to or greater than a deduplication threshold merging the content items in the first and second clusters into one cluster; and reducing a number of clusters for the plurality of content items based on a deduplication threshold as disclosed by Colalillo and Iragavarapu 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 configure di 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. 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