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 .
Claims 1 – 12 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim 11 recites a “method for data retrieval, comprising: dividing first vector data into a plurality of clusters . . . determining a centroid of each cluster . . . ; creating a list . . . ; and comparison between the first vector data and the second vector data. . .” the claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A Prong One:
"determine a centroid of each cluster" as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0007] where one can mentally evaluate to perform to determine a centroid of each cluster.
“creating a list of the vector data” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0007] where one can mentally evaluate to creating a list of the vector data.
These imitations 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 a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determining” and “creating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, “determines a centroid of each of the clusters and then creating a list of the vector data belonging to the clusters” in order to provide a database apparatus, a database retrieval method, and a database system capable of balancing reliability of retrieval and a processing speed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "dividing first vector data " and "comparison between first vector and second vector.” These limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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.
Step 2B: The limitations "dividing” and “comparison” 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)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are rejected for the same rational under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2 – 10 merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the list creation unit determines the first vector data included in the predetermined area based on a position of the centroid and a position of the boundary”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the list creation unit determines the first vector data included in the predetermined area based on distances between the first vector data, and the position of the centroid and the position of the boundary”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the list creation unit determines the first vector data included in the predetermined area based on a cosine similarity defined based on a relationship between the first vector data and the position of the centroid”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the retrieval unit performs the comparison by further using all the first vector data included in a cluster adjacent to the cluster to which the second vector data belongs, the cluster being defined based on a position of the centroid”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 5. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the retrieval unit distinguishes between a case where all the first vector data included in the cluster adjacent to the cluster to which the second vector data belongs is used, and a case where the first vector data included in the predetermined area set for the cluster to which the second vector data belongs is used”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 6. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the retrieval unit uses all the first vector data included in the cluster adjacent to the cluster to which the second vector data belongs for clusters corresponding to the number determined in advance in ascending order of distance of the position of the centroid, and uses the first vector data included in the predetermined area set for the cluster to which the second vector data belongs for the remaining clusters”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the list creation unit creates a first table indicating whether or not the first vector data exists in the predetermined area as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters, and the retrieval unit determines whether or not the first vector data included in the predetermined area is to be retrieved by referring to the first table”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the list creation unit creates a second table indicating a list of the first vector data included in the predetermined area as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters, and the retrieval unit specifies the list of the first vector data included in the predetermined area by referring to the second table”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the retrieval unit creates a third table indicating whether or not the predetermined area has been used for retrieval as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters and prevents comparison for the predetermined area from being performed in an overlapped manner by referring to the third table”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-121044 A issued to Aoyama Kazuo and in view of USPGPUB 2007/0244915 issued to Wan Kyn Cha et al (“Cha”).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, Aoyama Kazuo teaches a database apparatus, method and system, comprising:
dividing first vector data into a plurality of clusters through clustering and determining a centroid of each of the clusters, the first vector data being data obtained by vectorizing chunks, the chunks being obtained by dividing a document (Aoyama Kazuo, claim 1: A clustering device that allocates a plurality of feature vectors each arranged on a spherical surface to a plurality of clusters by an iterative procedure. Para [0003]: defining a scale representing a relationship between pieces of information, such as similarity or dissimilarity, or a distance between pieces of information, and integrating similar pieces of information into one or dividing (clustering) a given information group into a set of similar pieces of information);
creating a list of the first vector data belonging to the clusters and the first vector data included in a predetermined area across a boundary of the clusters (Aoyama Kazuo, claim 5: allocates a plurality of feature vectors each arranged on a spherical surface to a plurality of clusters by an iterative procedure (interpreted as list)); and
the first vector data close to second vector data created for a query by performing comparison between the first vector data and the second vector data based on the list, performing the comparison by using the first vector data included in a cluster to which the second vector data belongs and the first vector data included in the predetermined area set for a boundary of the cluster to which the second vector data belongs (Aoyama Kazuo, claim 5: a similarity calculation procedure of calculating, for each of the feature vectors, a similarity between the feature vector and a representative vector of each of the plurality of clusters (interpreted first vector as feature vector and second vector as representative vector)).
Aoyama Kazuo teaches claimed invention substantially as claimed, Aoyama Kazuo does not explicitly teach retrieval of vector data or (retrieval of document).
Cha discloses, “the index file and the feature vector of each document created by the document feature writing unit have been described. A configuration of a system of determining a representative vector of each document, and clustering retrieved documents. (Para [0051]). The document retrieving unit performs retrieval in units of field in each document of the document DB with respect to a plurality of queries input by the user, and determines a similarity of a corresponding field on the basis of occurrence frequencies of the corresponding queries in each field. (Para [0056]).
Both of Aoyama Kazuo and Cha are same field of endeavor and they are both in the data processing art and therefore, they are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Aoyama Kazuo with the teachings of Cha in order to provide a user with correlation and similarity between retrieved documents automatically, without user’s execution of the cluster operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 – 4, 5 – 7 and 8 – 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The applied prior art made of record and other prior art do not explicitly teach, “the list creation unit determines the first vector data included in the predetermined area based on a position of the centroid and a position of the boundary” as recited in claim 2.
The dependent claims 3 – 4, being definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification could also be allowable.
The applied prior art made of record and other prior art do not explicitly teach, “the retrieval unit performs the comparison by further using all the first vector data included in a cluster adjacent to the cluster to which the second vector data belongs, the cluster being defined based on a position of the centroid” as recited in claim 5.
The dependent claims 6 – 7, being definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification could also be allowable.
The applied prior art made of record and other prior art do not explicitly teach, “the list creation unit creates a first table indicating whether or not the first vector data exists in the predetermined area as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters, and the retrieval unit determines whether or not the first vector data included in the predetermined area is to be retrieved by referring to the first table” as recited in claim 8.
The applied prior art made of record and other prior art do not explicitly teach, “the list creation unit creates a second table indicating a list of the first vector data included in the predetermined area as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters, and the retrieval unit specifies the list of the first vector data included in the predetermined area by referring to the second table” as recited in claim 9.
The applied prior art made of record and other prior art do not explicitly teach, “the retrieval unit creates a third table indicating whether or not the predetermined area has been used for retrieval as a relationship between the centroids or between the clusters and prevents comparison for the predetermined area from being performed in an overlapped manner by referring to the third table” as recited in claim 10.
Examiner Notes
The examiner has considered the applicant's claims in light of the disclosure. However, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,577(Fed. Cir. 2002)); “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” SRIInt’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc). Written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
Note that “limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims, and … interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” Intervet Am., v. Kee-Vet Labs., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474 1476 (fed. Cir. 1989).
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp,. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (fed. Cir. 2005).
“One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.’… For example, an inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer is he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention’ with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Such a definition may appear in the written description, … or in the prosecution history, …” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is also cited and Applicants are reminded that they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed prior art could be used as an obviousness type Office correspondence.
Cha (USPGPUB 2007/0244915): involves a document retrieving unit retrieves documents having a query input by a user using the indexes. A clustering unit has a representative vector calculator calculating feature vectors and a representative vector of the retrieved documents, and a similarity calculator calculating similarities between the documents using the feature vectors and the representative vector. A cluster database stores the clustered documents.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
July 24, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights