The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 May 2025 has been entered.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-21, 23-29 are pending.
Claim 6, 14, 22, 30 are cancelled.
Claims 17-20, 23-24 include limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claims 17-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 17-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-5, 7-13, 15-21, 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-21, 23-29.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In claim 17, claim limitations "means for receiving …", "discovery module", "means for determining …", "means for classifying …", “means for generating …”, “means for processing …”, “means for executing”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 18, claim limitations "means for selecting …", have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 19, claim limitations "means for arbitrarily labeling …", “means for identifying …” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 20, claim limitations "means for applying a kernel constraint …", have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 23, claim limitations "means for sharing …", have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 24, claim limitations "means for sharing …", have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim(s) limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 17-21, 23-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, "means for receiving …", "discovery module", "means for determining …", "means for classifying …", “means for generating …”, “means for processing …”, “means for executing”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, "means for selecting …"”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, "means for arbitrarily labeling …", “means for identifying …”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, "means for applying a kernel constraint …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, "means for sharing …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 24, "means for sharing …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to determine the boundary of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 18-21, 23-24, which depend on above rejected claims 17, are rejected for the same reason.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
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.
Claims 17-21, 23-24 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 claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, "means for receiving …", "discovery module", "means for determining …", "means for classifying …", “means for generating …”, “means for processing …”, “means for executing”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 18, "means for selecting …”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, "means for arbitrarily labeling …", “means for identifying …”, there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 20, "means for applying a kernel constraint …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 23, "means for sharing …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 24, "means for sharing …", there is no sufficient structure description in the specification to support these limitations, the claim The claim(s) is(are) therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 18-21, 23-24, which depend on above rejected claims 17, are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16, 25-29 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “determining a node neighborhood for each of the nodes of the graph network and an edge neighborhood for each of the edges of the graph network; classifying the node neighborhood for each of the nodes and the edge neighborhood for each of the edges based on isomorphism; determining a mapping of a kernel from an edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network; generating a graph convolutional network that is symmetrically equivariant with respect to the nodes of the graph network based on the mapping; processing …. an input, comprising a planar image; and executing … convolutions involving the input based on the mapping to generate an inference without applying an attention mechanism” (mental process and/or math concept), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind. . For example, “determining”, “classifying”, “generating”, “processing”, “executing”, in the limitation citied above could be performed by a human mind with possible aid of pencil / paper / calculator, but for the recitation of a generic computer component (e.g., a human model analyzer could receive, analyze, and convert graphical representation of data). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (e.g., computer, processor, memory coupled to processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receiving a graph network comprising nodes connected by edges” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer elements merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “receiving a graph network comprising nodes connected by edges”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining & storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-5, 7-8 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claims 2, the claim further includes limitation “selecting the edge neighborhood class representative for isomorphic edge neighborhoods of the graph network; and selecting a node class representative for isomorphic node neighborhoods of the graph network”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 3, the claim further includes limitation “arbitrarily labeling each node of the node class representative; and identifying a second mapping of the node class representative to all neighborhoods in the node neighborhood class of the node class representative”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 5, the claim further includes limitation “in which node neighborhoods, edge neighborhoods, the node neighborhood class, the edge neighborhood class, and the kernel constraint for the edge neighborhood class representative are pre-determined based on a symmetry of a corresponding edge neighborhood”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 7, the claim further includes limitation “further comprising sharing the kernel between non- isomorphic edges via kernel canonization”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 8, the claim further includes limitation “further comprising sharing the kernel between non- isomorphic edges via tensor factorization”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9-13, 15-16, 25-29
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 9 / 25, the claim recites a machine / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “… to determine a node neighborhood for each of the nodes of the graph network and an edge neighborhood for each of the edges of the graph network; … to classify the node neighborhood for each of the nodes and the edge neighborhood for each of the edges based on isomorphism; … to determine a mapping of a kernel from an edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network; … to generate a graph convolutional network based on the mapping; … to process … an input comprising a planar image; and … to execute, … convolutions involving the input based on the mapping to generate an inference without applying an attention mechanism” (mental process and/or math concept), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind. . For example, “determining”, “classifying”, “generating” in the limitation citied above could be performed by a human mind with possible aid of pencil / paper / calculator, but for the recitation of a generic computer component (e.g., a human model analyzer could receive, analyze, and convert graphical representation of data). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (e.g., computer, processor, memory coupled to processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “to receive a graph network comprising nodes connected by edges” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer elements merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “to receive a graph network comprising nodes connected by edges”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining & storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 10-13, 15-16 / 26-29 are dependent on claim 9 / 25 and include all the limitations of claim 9 / 25. Therefore, claims 10-13, 15-16 / 26-29 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 10 / 26, the claim further includes limitation “to select the edge neighborhood class representative for isomorphic edge neighborhoods of the graph network; and to select a node class representative for isomorphic node neighborhoods of the graph network”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 11 / 27, the claim further includes limitation “to arbitrarily label each node of the node class representative; and to identify a second mapping of the node class representative to all neighborhoods in the node neighborhood class of the node class representative”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12 / 28, the claim further includes limitation “to determine the mapping by applying a kernel constraint for the edge neighborhood class representative”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13 / 29, the claim further includes limitation “in which node neighborhoods, edge neighborhoods, the node neighborhood class, the edge neighborhood class, and the kernel constraint for the edge neighborhood class representative are pre-determined based on a symmetry of a corresponding edge neighborhood”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim further includes limitation “to share the kernel between non-isomorphic edges via kernel canonization”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim further includes limitation “to share the kernel between non-isomorphic edges via tensor factorization”, which is further steps for on graph processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 May 2025 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 112 rejections, Applicant argued that (p.8)
PNG
media_image1.png
243
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: There is no structural description in paragraphs 34, 35, 41 and 97 in the specification for the various hardware modules cited in claims 17-21 and 23-24, e.g., “means for receiving …”, “means for determining …”, etc. The rejections are maintained.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.9-10) ….
PNG
media_image2.png
282
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image3.png
352
950
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: Human mind process image data and handle graphical models, as human has been using graphical models to represent objects, e.g., human can map city onto a planar road network, hence the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Except by citing generic computing element for implementing the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application. 101 rejection is maintained.
2) Applicant argued that (p.10-11) ….
PNG
media_image4.png
327
946
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
245
965
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: The invention claimed is directed to using abstract graphical model to process image which can be performed by human mind with possible help of paper & pen. Except citing generic computer to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application. 101 rejection is maintained.
3) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number 571-272-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128