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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/23/26 has been entered.
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.
Amended claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims 1, 10 and 11 recite parsing received text into at least one element (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), matching the element to an element in a semantic knowledge graph that includes query nodes and first and second element nodes, each query node including a multi term query (i.e., an analysis/evaluation/comparison step), selecting a second element node in the graph (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), generating an autocomplete suggestion notification including at least the selected second element node (i.e. a data retrieval/post solutional step of retrieving known output based on received input), and transmitting toward a user interface with respect to the generating (i.e., a post solutional activity step of generating output), generating the semantic knowledge graph by: receiving events/queries by the computer (i.e., a data gathering step), parsing the events into objects by the computer (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), determining a relationship between two objects by the computer (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), generating a semantic knowledge graph based on the relationships (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), repeating the receiving, parsing determining and generating steps to update the graph over time (i.e., multiple analysis/evaluation steps), and assigning a score to each edge of the graph based on a frequency/count of the relationships (i.e., an analysis/evaluation step), corresponding to steps achievable by a human mentally or manually analyzing received input, matching the input to a tree/graph of words to determine what output to provide, and as such, the steps correspond to the mental processes category of abstract ideas. The claims further include practices of managing business relations/rules and as such, correspond to the Certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, where the generically recited computer elements (steps performed “by the computer”, medium, system, processing circuitry, memory, interface) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “generating by the computer, an autocomplete suggestion notification including at least the selected second element node” and “transmitting by the computer, the generated autocomplete suggestion notification toward the user interface” corresponds to well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions of storing and retrieving information in/from memory and transmitting information as recognized by court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05 and as provided by cited references Ismalon, Hertz, Vermeulen, Arvela and Hiwale.
The dependent claims 2-8, 12-18 and 20-28 also recite mental processes and methods of organizing human activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are as such similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claims 1, 10 and 11 recite “each query node containing a multi-term query” as well as “matching, by the computer, the at least one element to a first element node of a plurality of element nodes…”. There is no support for these limitations in Applicant’s original disclosure.
Figure 9 as explained by para. [0069] of the invention illustrates semantic knowledge graph 900 that includes query nodes 910, 912, 914 and 916 as well as object nodes 920, 922, and 924 and where each object node represents an object. Para. [0070] describes the objects represented by object nodes 920, 922, and 924 as elements that could be used for autocompleting a user query includes that includes one or more current inputs. Para. [0071] describes a plurality of objects may be associated with the query node 912 (i.e., object nodes associated with the query nodes) and provided as outputs. There is no disclosure by these portions of the disclosure or the entire disclosure of each input/query as containing a multi-term query, and there is further no disclosure of each query node of the semantic knowledge graph as containing a multi-term query as claimed. The portions describe a query node 912 as being associated with objects as well as the knowledge graph including multiple query nodes, but not each of the plurality of query nodes containing multi-term queries as claimed.
Also, there is no disclosure of “element node(s)” in Applicants original disclosure. The original specification describes “the objects represented by object nodes 920, 922, and 924 are elements that could be used for autocompleting a query including one or more current inputs.” (see fig. 9 and para. [0071]) i.e., a disclosure of matching elements of a query to “object nodes”, but not to “element nodes” or the use of “a unique element” as presented in claims 2 and 12.
The dependent claims are further rejected based on their dependency.
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 1-8, 20, 25, 26 and 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. Particularly, claim 1 recites “transmitting, by the computer toward the user interface”. It is unclear what element is being transmitted to the user interface. The above language of the claim is interpreted as corresponding to “transmitting, by the computer the generated autocomplete suggestion notification toward the user interface”. The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-28 as presented (7/23/26) are allowable over the prior art in light of the PTAB decision dated 5/26/26, however, the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections provided above still apply to the claim.
Ismalon (US 2008/0140643 A1) discloses a system of providing preliminary search results to a user to complete the user’s query in real time based on a partially-formed search query as the user enters keywords into a search field, by constructing an association graph that includes portions of the user’s query terms, where the portions are represented as vertices/nodes linked to one another via links/edges (i.e., nodes corresponding to query terms), where the vertices/nodes each contain a single term that comprises one or more keywords, where the association graph also includes vertices/nodes of candidate refinement options (i.e., nodes corresponding to candidate refinement terms), where each edge has a score representing association strength between the nodes/vertices, where the scores of the edges are increased/decreased based on increment and damping values according to user selection of refinement options and where the candidate refinement options are presented to a user on a user interface.
Vermeulen (US 2016/0373456 A1) discloses a business intelligence system for generating query suggestions to complete a query that a user has begun typing (i.e. an autocompletion suggestion) including the use of a knowledge graph to retrieve nodes of measures, dimensions and formulas to complete the typed user query, where the completion is displayed at a user interface.
Hiwale (US 2015/0347436 A1) discloses a system for performing query auto-completion including the use of a tree structure of query nodes and solution nodes, where elements of a user query are represented by the query nodes and matched to the solution nodes in order to provide auto completion suggestions to the user using contents of the solution nodes as auto completion suggestions, where the suggestions are displayed at a user interface.
Hertz (US 2018/0082183 A1) discloses a system for performing query auto-suggestion including linking entity nodes representative of a query with candidate nodes of a knowledge, where the suggestions are displayed at a user interface.
Arvela (US 2021/0350125 A1) discloses a system of creating a knowledge graph including receiving names present in a user query, determining a link between the names, generating/updating the graph based on edge weights, repeating the processes on a periodic basis and assigning a weight/score based on the relationships between names in the graph.
Buehrer (US 2011/0314011 A1) discloses a system for automatically generating text including the use of a graph with linked query nodes and URL nodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on 571-272-7602. 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.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights