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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is in response to the amendment filed on March 16, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on December 31, 2025 has been considered.
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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are directed to a method. Therefore, each of the claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims recite:
“mapping a plurality of templates including a plurality of concepts configured to be populated by selected entities to a plurality of analytic tasks”; mapping templates to concepts is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[applying a Natural Language Processing (NLP) to] discover first data relationships between the plurality of first phrasal entities and first context relationships between the first phrasal entities”; discovering data and context relationships is an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“constructing a knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities extracted from a data corpus and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the second phrasal entities”; discovering second data and context relationships and analytical intents and constructing a knowledge graph from them is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“dynamically linking the plurality of first phrasal entities to the plurality of second phrasal entities to form a plurality of enriched phrasal entities in the KG, wherein, the plurality of first phrasal entities and the plurality of second phrasal entities are grouped by the analytical intents”; linking entities in a KG based on analytical intent is an evaluation that can be carried out in by a human in the mind and with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“identifying a first analytic task of the plurality of analytic tasks based on the selection of the one or more enriched phrasal entities”; identifying is a mental process
“identifying a first visualization of a plurality of visualizations based on the first analytic task”; identifying is a mental process
“selecting, from the analytic task library, a trained model among the plurality of models corresponding to the first analytic task based on correspondence with analytic action specifications derived from the first analytic task”; selecting is a mental process
“performing the first analytic task [using the selected model] to retrieve data”; analyzing is a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“A computer-implemented method for creating a question answering system, the computer-implemented method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“applying a Natural Language Processing (NLP) to”; here, NLP is broadly recited at a high level of generality, and limitations that achieve some goal via the execution of a generically defined ML model “amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for completing a first template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“training a plurality of models, wherein, for each analytic task, analytic action specifications are derived as technical requirements”; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data);
“wherein each trained model corresponds to an analytic task and is stored in an analytic task library along with an association between the trained model and a visualization among the plurality of visualizations”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”)
“displaying the retrieved data on a user interface according to the first visualization”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“A computer-implemented method for creating a question answering system, the computer-implemented method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“applying a Natural Language Processing (NLP) to”; here, NLP is broadly recited at a high level of generality, and limitations that achieve some goal via the execution of a generically defined ML model “amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for completing a first template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“training a plurality of models, wherein, for each analytic task, analytic action specifications are derived as technical requirements”; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data);
“wherein each trained model corresponds to an analytic task and is stored in an analytic task library along with an association between the trained model and a visualization among the plurality of visualizations”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
“displaying the retrieved data on a user interface according to the first visualization”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
Dependent Claims:
Claim 2 recites: “further comprising using the selected model to process data related to a technical requirement of a further user story”; processing data can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process under Step 2A Prong 1; using a generically defined “model” to do so amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f) under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B
Claim 3 recites: “wherein each of the one or more enriched phrasal entities describes one of data selection, transformation, model formulation, and report design specifications”; as explained in the rejection to Claim 1, forming a plurality of enriched phrasal entities is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Claim 5 recites:
- “further comprising: storing the selected model and the first visualization linked in a searchable repository”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, Examiner notes that a “searchable repository” with “linked” entities is nothing more than a description of a generic database, and this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
- “wherein the selected model and the first visualization are identified based on a selection of textual elements of at least a portion of the one or more enriched phrasal entities”; identifying is a mental process
Claim 6 recites: “wherein the textual elements are each categorized as at least one of an industry type, a starter word, an actor's role, and a data type”; categorizing textual elements is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Claim 7 recites: “wherein a first user story completing the first template is stored in a library of user stories”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
Claim 8 recites: “wherein the one or more enriched phrasal entities are mapped to the analytic tasks in the analytic task library”; mapping entities and tasks is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process; the “library” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, Examiner notes that a “library” with a “mapping” of entities is nothing more than a description of a generic database, and this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
Claim 9 recites: “wherein the first template is annotated with the first analytic task”; annotating stories is an evaluation that can be carried out by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Claim 10 recites: “further comprising updating the KG iteratively based on a received user feedback”; updating a KG is an evaluation that can be carried out by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process; receiving user feedback amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
Claims 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 11-15 and 17-18 are directed to a method. Therefore, each of the claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims recite:
“mapping a plurality of templates including a plurality of concepts configured to be populated by selected entities to a plurality of analytic tasks”; mapping templates to concepts is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“discovering first data relationships between the plurality of first phrasal entities; discovering first context relationships between the plurality of first phrasal entities”; discovering data and context relationships is an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[accessing a] knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities extracted from a data corpus and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the plurality of second phrasal entities”; discovering second data, context relationships, and analytical intents and constructing a knowledge graph from them is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“dynamically linking the plurality of first phrasal entities to the plurality of second phrasal entities to form a plurality of enriched phrasal entities in the KG, wherein, the plurality of first phrasal entities and the plurality of second phrasal entities are grouped by the analytical intents”; linking entities in a KG based on stories and analytical intent is an evaluation that can be carried out in by a human in the mind and with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template] and determined based on an affinity map of applicable characteristics to each of the concepts”; determining a display based on the analysis of an affinity map is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[receiving] a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities, wherein the selected one or more enriched phrasal entities complete the template”; completing a template with selected entities is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“mining, using the KG, a first analytical intent corresponding to the selected one or more enriched phrasal entities”; determining and intent based on the analysis of a knowledge graph is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“identifying a first analytic task based on the selected one or more enriched phrasal entities”; identifying is a mental process
“selecting a trained model among a plurality of models corresponding to the first analytic task based on correspondence with analytic action specifications derived from the first analytic task, wherein the analytic action specifications are used as technical requirements associated with the first analytic task”; making a selection based on a match is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper and is thus a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“A computer-implemented method of operating a question answering system, the computer-implemented method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“accessing a knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the second phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“A computer-implemented method of operating a question answering system, the computer-implemented method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“accessing a knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the second phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, as the use of a generic display merely facilitates the sending and receiving of data
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, as the use of a generic display merely facilitates the sending and receiving of data
Dependent Claims:
Claim 12 recites: “wherein each of the one or more enriched phrasal entities describes one of data selection, transformation, model formulation, and report design specifications”; as explained in the rejection to Claim 11, forming a plurality of enriched phrasal entities is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Claim 13 recites:
“wherein the trained model and a first visualization are linked and stored in an analytic task library”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
Claim 14 recites: “further comprising using the selected model to process data related to a technical requirement of a further user story”; processing data can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process under Step 2A Prong 1; using a generically defined “model” to do so amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f) under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B
Claim 15 recites: “wherein the first template is annotated with the first analytic task”; annotating stores is an evaluation that can be carried out by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Claim 17 recites:
- “further comprising: storing the selected model and the first visualization in a searchable repository”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, Examiner notes that a “searchable repository” with “linked” entities is nothing more than a description of a generic database, and this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
“wherein the selected model and the first visualization are identified based on a selection of textual elements of at least a portion of the one or more enriched phrasal entities”; identifying is a mental process
Claim 18 recites: “wherein the one or more enriched phrasal entities are mapped to respective ones of the analytic tasks in the analytic task library”; mapping entities and tasks is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process; the “library” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, Examiner notes that a “library” with a “mapping” of entities is nothing more than a description of a generic database, and this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 19-21 and 23 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims recite:
“mapping a plurality of templates including a plurality of concepts configured to be populated by selected entities to a plurality of analytic tasks”; mapping templates to concepts is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“discovering first data relationships between the plurality of first phrasal entities; discovering first context relationships between the plurality of first phrasal entities”; discovering data and context relationships is an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[accessing a] knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the plurality of second phrasal entities”; discovering second data and context relationships and constructing a knowledge graph from them is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“dynamically linking the plurality of first phrasal entities to the plurality of second phrasal entities to form a plurality of enriched phrasal entities in the KG, wherein, the plurality of first phrasal entities and the plurality of second phrasal entities are grouped by the analytical intents”; linking entities in a KG based on stories and analytical intent is an evaluation that can be carried out in by a human in the mind and with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“[providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template] and determined based on an affinity map of applicable characteristics to each of the concepts”; determining a display based on the analysis of an affinity map is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“mining, using the KG, a first analytical intent corresponding to the selected one or more enriched phrasal entities”; determining and intent based on the analysis of a knowledge graph is an evaluation that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
“identifying a first analytic task based on the selected one or more enriched phrasal entities”; identifying is a mental process
“selecting a trained model among a plurality of models corresponding to the first analytic task based on correspondence with analytic action specifications derived from the first analytic task, wherein the analytic action specifications are used as technical requirements associated with the first analytic task”; making a selection based on a match is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper and is thus a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method of operating a question answering system, the method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“accessing a knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the plurality of second phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method of operating a question answering system, the method comprising”; this amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f)
“receiving a plurality of user stories, wherein each of the plurality of user stories is structured as a plurality of first phrasal entities selected to complete a respective template of the plurality of templates”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“accessing a knowledge graph (KG) that captures second data relationships and second contextual relationships of a plurality of second phrasal entities and incorporates analytical intents for the second data relationships and the second contextual relationships of the plurality of second phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
“providing a display of a first template of the plurality of templates including concepts configured to display one or more of the plurality of enriched phrasal entities for a plurality of concepts of the first template”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, as the use of a generic display merely facilitates the sending and receiving of data
“receiving a selection of one or more enriched phrasal entities from the plurality of enriched phrasal entities”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, as the use of a generic display merely facilitates the sending and receiving of data
Dependent Claims:
Claim 20 recites:
“wherein the trained model and a first visualization are linked and stored in an analytic task library”; this amounts to insignificant extra solution activity – mere data gathering and outputting, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also Examiner notes that how the model and visualization are stored and retrieved for use does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention, as these aspects are only tangentially related to the invention (“(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention”); furthermore, this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
Claim 21 recites: “further comprising using the selected model to process data related to a technical requirement of a further user story”; processing data can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process under Step 2A Prong 1; using a generically defined “model” to do so amounts to “nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer” as per MPEP 2106.05(f) under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B
Claim 23 recites: “wherein each of the one or more enriched phrasal entities describes one of data selection, transformation, model formulation, and report design specifications”; as explained in the rejection to Claim 19, forming a plurality of enriched phrasal entities is an evaluation that can be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
With respect to the Patent Eligibility under Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant argues that “constructing a knowledge graph from a data corpus requires machine processing of large-scale textual and structured data”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While computational complexity may exceed human capacity for large knowledge graphs, the fundamental process of constructing a knowledge graph is a conceptual activity. One can mentally, with aid of pen and paper, construct a knowledge graph even if not to the scale of a computer. The abstract idea doctrine is not limited to what the human mind can do perfectly or efficiently, but to whether the steps are fundamentally mental. The claimed steps of constructing a knowledge graph can be performed mentally, and thus remain within the abstract idea category.
Applicant also argues that “dynamically linking phrasal entities within a graph based on analytical intents requires automated graph traversal and indexing”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in the claim that requires that linking phrasal entities require automated graph traversal and linking. Dynamically linking entities is merely relating a phrasal entity to a plurality of second entities. Linking entities is interpreted as a mental process and could be done with the aid of pen and paper.
Applicant also argues “selecting a trained model from an analytic task library based on analytic action specifications requires machine-based model management and retrieval”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The selection limitation merely states selecting a model based on its correspondence to analytic action specifications. This selecting step is a mental process as a person could mentally select a model based on specific criteria.
Applicant also argues “The specification explains that analytic action specifications are derived for each analytic task and used as technical requirements for analytic development. See Specification, e.g. [0078])”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “selecting, from the analytic task library, a trained model among the plurality of models corresponding to the first analytic task based on correspondence with analytic action specifications derived from the first analytic task” However the claim does not positively recite the actual deriving of the analytic action specifications, with that in mind the selecting step is a mental process as a person could easily select a model based on specific criteria.
Applicant also argues “the claimed method here improves computer operation by enabling structured transformation of natural-language user stories into executable analytic tasks through a knowledge graph based architecture and re-usable training models”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim lacks a specific, non-conventional technical improvement to computer hardware or computer architecture. There is no disclosed new data structure, cache/processor optimization, memory management scheme, or hardware-accelerated method that changes how the computer operates beyond standard software processing. The independent claim 1, as amended, is directed to an abstract idea (data processing, Naturel Language Processing, Knowledge Graph construction) and not to a specific improvement in computer functionality.
With respect to the Patent Eligibility under Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant argues “The specification further describes that trained models corresponding to analytic tasks may be stored and reused within an analytic task library, thereby enabling efficient execution of analytics associated with similar analytic tasks across different user stories. See, e.g. Specification [0076]-[0084])”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement being referred to in this argument is not currently reflected in the claim. Examiner would also like to point out that MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Applicant also argues “Thus, the ordered combination of claim features forms a specific technological workflow that enables automated execution of analytics in complex data environments”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sequence in the claims merely represents an automated process for analytics, not a technical improvement to hardware or computer technology. Merely automating an abstract idea on generic computing equipment does not provide an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The instant amendments and arguments overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections of record. The claims would be allowable once the 35 USC 101 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIELA D REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-1006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-3923. 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.
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights