DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on August 27, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 state “calculate a degree of cluster classification indicating an index by which the target data is classified into the first cluster or the second cluster based on the target data, the first cluster, and the second cluster.”
However, it is not clear how a calculation of a degree of classification can indicate an index. An index is a particular data structure that helps with looking up information. And while the Applicant may be their own lexicographer, the concept of an index is a well known term in the computer arts, and the current phrasing does not seem to make sense in view of the claim language or the instant specification.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 further state “convert the target data based on the degree of cluster classification.” However, a conversion operation converts data from one format to another. But the above limitation only states that data is being converted on a basis of a degree of cluster classification. As such, it is unclear what the data is being converted into. Dependent Claims 2-18 do not remedy the above issues.
Claim 16 describes relative terms such as “greatly changes where the data is perturbed.” It is unclear in view of the specification what would make changes to data as “greatly changes” and what it means for data to be perturbed in view of the specification. Dependent Claims 17-18 do not remedy the above issues.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following features:
acquire input data - Receiving data is considered extra solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05.
calculate a feature vector from the input data – Identifying data received is something that a person is able to do in their mind
divide the input data into two or more clusters based on the feature vector – Separating out data into different groups based on its characteristics is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
select a first cluster from the two or more clusters – Identifying a particular group of data is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
select a second cluster different from the first cluster from the two or more clusters – Identifying data from received data is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
extract target data from the input data – Extracting data is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
calculate a degree of cluster classification indicating an index by which the target data is classified into the first cluster or the second cluster based on the target data, the first cluster, and the second cluster – Classifying data based on a particular parameter is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
convert the target data based on the degree of cluster classification – Converting data from one format to another is something that a person is able to do in their mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such a processor, storage device, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to dependent Claims 2-18, these claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the Claims recite more details of the above identified mental processes, and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medalion et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0394226) in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0051244).
Claims 1, 19 and 20: Medalion discloses an apparatus, a method and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
acquire input data [0026, 0091]. [See at least receiving input.]
calculate a feature vector from the input data [0091-0092]. [See at least identifying different vectors.]
divide the input data into two or more clusters based on the feature vector [0091-0092]. [See at least clustering.]
select a first cluster from the two or more clusters [0091-0092]. [See at least identifying different clusters.]
select a second cluster different from the first cluster from the two or more clusters [0091-0092]. [See at least identifying different clusters.]
extract target data from the input data [0091-0092]. [See at least identifying different clusters based on the input data.]
Medalion alone does not explicitly disclose calculate a degree of cluster classification indicating an index by which the target data is classified into the first cluster or the second cluster based on the target data, the first cluster, and the second cluster; and convert the target data based on the degree of cluster classification.
However, Lee [0046] discloses calculating which cluster data belongs to based at least on a score, and the system in Lee can further increase the score (i.e. convert the target data) in order to cluster certain data together.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Medalion with Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to cluster data based on particular criteria.
Claim 2: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, and Medalion further discloses extract the target data by performing selection from or combination of the input data [0091-0092]. [See at least identifying different clusters based on the input data.]
Claim 3: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses extract the target data by performing selection from or combination of input data of the first cluster or the second cluster [0046].
Claim 4: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses extract the target data by combining input data of each of the first cluster and the second cluster [0046-0048, 0050]. [See at least looking at data from different classifications that may be clustered together.]
Claim 11: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to convert the target data to increase and/or decrease the degree of cluster classification [0046].
Claim 14: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 11 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses a display that displays the target data, the data obtained by converting the target data to increase the degree of cluster classification, and the data obtained by converting the target data to decrease the degree of cluster classification [0046-0047]. [The end result of the clustering will display the new clusters.]
Claim 15: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 11 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses a display, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to convert the target data in stages to generate data of each conversion stage to increase the degree of cluster classification in stages and/or decrease the degree of cluster classification in stages, and the display updates and displays the data at each of the stages of conversion [0046-0047]. [The end result of the clustering will display the new clusters.]
Claim 16: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, and Lee, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output an element of the target data in which the degree of cluster classification greatly changes in a case where the target data is perturbed [0046-0047, 0055].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medalion et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0394226) in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0051244) and further in view of Sun et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0263969).
Claim 5: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, but Medalion alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of cluster classification represents a difference between a distance from the target data to a representative vector of the first cluster and a distance from the target data to a representative vector of the second cluster.
However, Sun [0016] discloses classifying data based at least on distance between vectors.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Medalion with Sun. One would have been motivated to do so in order to cluster data based on distance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medalion et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0394226) in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0051244) and further in view of Gove (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0295296).
Claim 6: Medalion as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 above, but Medalion alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of cluster classification represents projection of the target data onto a direction vector from a representative vector of the first cluster to a representative vector of the second cluster.
However, Gove [0002] discloses a “Projection of the feature vector onto a two dimensional Cartesian plane allows visualization of the classification, as similar graphs appear as clusters or groups…”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Medalion with Gove. One would have been motivated to do so in order to visualize clustered data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nissinovitch et al (2023/0252059) describes at least predicted classification based on angles of cosine similarity to create clusters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights