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 .
The instant application having Application No. 19/031,121 filed on 05/26/2015 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claim 1 is currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/17/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 08/16/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,406,002 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-21 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,406,002 B2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting the nodes of that group, to generate a group score for each group with for each metric of the set of metrics, evaluating at least one metric-lens combination by calculating a metric-lens score based on entropy of shared characteristics across subspaces of a reference map generated by the metric-lens combination.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, the claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium including executable instructions, the instructions being executable by a processor to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving a data set;
for each metric of a set of metrics:
for each point in the data set, determining a point in the data set closest to that
particular data point using that particular metric and changing a metric score if that particular
data point and the point in the data set closest to that particular data point share a same or similar
shared characteristic;
for each metric of the set of metrics, evaluating at least one metric-lens combination by
calculating a metric-lens score based on entropy of shared characteristics across subspaces of a reference map generated by the metric-lens combination;
selecting one or more metric-lens combinations based at least in part on the metric-lens
score to generate a subset of metric-lens combinations;
generating topological representations using the data set, each topological
representation being generated using at least one metric-lens combination of the subset of metric-lens
combinations, each topological representation including a plurality of nodes, each of the nodes having one or more data points from the data set as members, at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes being connected by an edge if the at least two nodes share at least one data point from the data set as members;
associating each node with at least one shared characteristic based, at least in part, on
at least some of member data points of that particular node sharing the shared characteristic;
identifying groups within each topological representation that include a subset of nodes
of the plurality of nodes that share the same or similar shared characteristics;
scoring each group within each topological representation based, at least in part, on
entropy, to generate a group score for each group;
scoring each topological representation based on the group scores of each group of that
particular topological representation to generate a graph score for each topological representation; and
providing an indication of at least one particular metric-lens combination associated
with at least one topological representation based on the graph scores to enable justification and
reproducibility of the at least one particular metric-lens combination associated with the at least
one topological representation being indicated”.
Step 1 : Statutory Category
Claim 1 discloses a CRM which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations “generating” and “identifying” which specifically recite “generating topological representations using the data set……. .at least one data point from the data set as members” and “identifying groups within each topological representation that include a subset of nodes of the plurality of nodes that share the same or similar shared characteristics”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at the data items/records and identify the relevant ones.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the additional elements “providing an indication of at least one particular metric-lens combination….………one topological representation being indicated”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “providing” step mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the steps of “selecting” and “associating” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to detect the scorings….” and “generating” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
Jan.08, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153