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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2021 and 06/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification and claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and comments starting on page 9 of the remarks.
The previous 112 rejections to claims 1, 3, 8, and 15 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments and comments starting on page 10.
Applicant's arguments regarding 101, starting on page 11, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 show that it is directed to a method, does not recite an abstract idea, and recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes even though the amendments does pass step 1, it does not pass step 2A prong one because the claim language and specification does not show how the claimed invention is able to “identify”, “create”, “filter”, or “create” in such a way that a person could not perform the listed actions having observed the knowledge graph. Examiner further notes that “identify”, “create”, “filter”, or “create” additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) nor do they amount to significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, the amendments does not go beyond an abstract idea and conventional activities. The 101 rejections have been updated to include the amended limitations and to clarify the reasoning given for the limitations that were not amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103, starting on page 18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “inferring knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements absent from the knowledge data, after completion of a full search for valid result branches” shown on page 20. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art does teach the limitation mentioned. Examiner notes that the amended claim 1 to include claim 2 is given a 103 rejection as shown below.
All dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective base claims and are rejected for at least the same reasons.
CRM
Claim 15 claims a computer program product, this product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media. This computer readable storage media is defined as non-transitory and for the purposes of examination is considered a non-transitory (paragraph [00120]) computer storage medium claim instead of a computer program product claim that does not belong to any of the four statutory categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is
directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the
Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
In reference to claim 1:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“identifying data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that is related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could observe and identify data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that are related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph.
“creating one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements or inferred knowledge data” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically create/draw one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements and inferred knowledge data.
“selecting one of the one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could select the one or more subgraphs.
“and modifying the knowledge graph with one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically modify the knowledge graph by drawing on the subgraphs.
“identifying one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph by traversing the knowledge graph;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could mentally traverse the knowledge graph and identify one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph.
“creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically draw onto the knowledge graph one or more placeholders.
“filtering the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person mentally filter the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets.
“creating one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could create one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering.
“and inferring knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements absent from the knowledge data, after completion of a full search for valid result branches” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could observe the missing data elements and infer what knowledge data to put in its place.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“A method, by a processor, for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph, comprising” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“A method, by a processor, for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph, comprising” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 5:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a process
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The method of claim 1, further including: creating one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements.
“and creating one or more additional associated datasets.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more additional associated datasets.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 8:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a machine
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“identify data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that is related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could observe and identify data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that are related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph.
“create one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements or inferred knowledge data” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically create/draw one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements and inferred knowledge data.
“select one of the one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could select the one or more subgraphs.
“and modify the knowledge graph with one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically modify the knowledge graph by drawing on the subgraphs.
“identify one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph by traversing the knowledge graph;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could mentally traverse the knowledge graph and identify one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph.
“create one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically draw onto the knowledge graph one or more placeholders.
“filter the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person mentally filter the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets.
“create one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could create one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering.
“and infer knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements absent from the knowledge data, after completion of a full search for valid result branches” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could observe the missing data elements and infer what knowledge data to put in its place.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“A system for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph in a computing environment, comprising: one or more computers with executable instructions that when executed cause the system to:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“A system for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph in a computing environment, comprising: one or more computers with executable instructions that when executed cause the system to:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 12:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a machine
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The system of claim 8, wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements.
“and create one or more additional associated datasets.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more additional associated datasets.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“The system of claim 8, wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements” is merely reciting the words" apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“The system of claim 8, wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements” is merely reciting the words" is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 15:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“program instructions to identify data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that is related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could observe and identify data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that are related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph.
“program instructions to create one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements or inferred knowledge data” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically create/draw one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements and inferred knowledge data.
“program instructions to select one of the one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could select the one or more subgraphs.
“program instructions to modify the knowledge graph with one or more subgraphs” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically modify the knowledge graph by drawing on the subgraphs.
“program instructions to identify one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph by traversing the knowledge graph;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could mentally traverse the knowledge graph and identify one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph.
“program instructions to create one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could physically draw onto the knowledge graph one or more placeholders.
“program instructions to filter the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets;” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person mentally filter the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets.
“program instructions to create one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could create one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering.
“and program instruction to infer knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements absent from the knowledge data, after completion of a full search for valid result branches” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could observe the missing data elements and infer what knowledge data to put in its place.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“A computer program product for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph in a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instruction comprising:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“A computer program product for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph in a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instruction comprising:” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In reference to claim 16:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The computer program product of claim 15, further including program instructions to: identify one or more relevant data patterns and the associated data” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lll)). For example, a person could identify one or more relevant data patterns and the associated data.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No
In reference to claim 18:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a manufacture
Step 2A Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
“The computer program product of claim 15, further including program instructions to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements;” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements.
“and create one or more additional associated datasets.” which is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The limitation as drafted, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill)). For example, a person could create one or more additional associated datasets.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
“The computer program product of claim 15, further including program instructions to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
“The computer program product of claim 15, further including program instructions to: create one or more temporary data elements and the missing data elements;” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VILLAZON-TERRAZAS BORIS et al; EP 3306502 A1 (hereinafter “Villazon”) in view of HELVIK; Torbjørn et al; US 20210406332 A1 (hereinafter “Helvik”).
Regarding Claim 1, 8, 15, Villazon teaches A method, by a processor, for identifying relevant graph patterns in a knowledge graph, comprising:
(Villazon Paragraph 104 shows identifying relevant graph patterns; “The module takes the diagnosis related information and searches on the HCRU Knowledge Graph using a sub-module for the ‘Identification of HCR for a given diagnosis’ that is in charge of identifying for a given diagnosis the related subgraph of the HCRU KG (see figure 20 ). [0105] The HCRU KG includes resources and services, and the diagnosis related information includes a diagnosis and its relations to other symptoms, drugs, and treatments. The relations of drugs and treatments can thus be linked to the HCRU KG”; Villazon Paragraph 0118 shows a processor coupled to memory storing executable instructions to perform the claimed processes. Examiner notes that finding the relevant diagnosis related information is finding graph features/patterns of the resources that are used for the diagnosis.)
identifying data elements from a knowledge graph and associated datasets that is related to one or more nodes of the knowledge graph and external to the knowledge graph; (Villazon Paragraph 56 shows identifying data elements from associated dataset; “a mechanism that identifies the associated health care resource utilization measure for a particular patient given his/her clinical history information.” Examiner notes that health care resource utilization is data elements and particular patient given his/her clinical history information is associated dataset; Villazon Paragraph 56 shows identifying data elements from the KG related to external; “identifying and extracting potential healthcare resources and services in the HCRU KG associated with the potential diagnosis.” Examiner notes that potential healthcare resources and services in the HCRU KG is data elements from the KG and potential diagnosis is external to the KG; Villazon Paragraph 69 shows identifying relation between data elements and nodes; “perform association between the medial services network with the medical resources utilization parameters.” Examiner notes that medical services are nodes within the HCRU KG and medical resources utilization parameters are data elements);
creating one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements or inferred knowledge data (Villazon Paragraph 89 shows creating one or more subgraphs based on missing data elements and inferred knowledge data; “check for a new medical service which is not in the HCRU KG (S180), validate the service by clinicians (S190) and store the new medical service in the correct group (S200); filter and prune the standard to generate a customized subgraph with the medical services of the institution (S210); perform process mining over available hospital logs and extract behavior patterns of the resources utilization for a particular medical institution (S220). filter, generate and customize a subgraph from the previous knowledge subgraph taking into account the resource utilization guidelines of a medical institution (S230).” Examiner notes a new medical service which is not in the HCRU KG is missing data elements; store the new medical service in the correct group is adding missing data elements to the KG; generate a customized subgraph with the medical services of the institution is creating a subgraph with the newly added missing data; process mining over hospital logs and extract behavior patterns of the resources utilization is inferred data;);
selecting one of the one or more subgraphs (Villazon Paragraph 94 shows selecting subgraphs; “The HCR utilization pattern contains a customized subgraph of the HCRU KG. This customized subgraph of the HCRU KG will be part of the HCRU KG. As a first approach it is possible to rely on existing, available, and basic approaches for process mining to provide the subgraph.”);
modifying the knowledge graph with one or more subgraphs. (Villazon Paragraph 94 shows modifying the knowledge graph with subgraph; “The HCR utilization pattern contains a customized subgraph of the HCRU KG. This customized subgraph of the HCRU KG will be part of the HCRU KG. As a first approach it is possible to rely on existing, available, and basic approaches for process mining to provide the subgraph.”);
identifying one or more relationships between data elements and instances in the knowledge graph by traversing the knowledge graph; (Villazon Paragraph 104; “The module takes the diagnosis related information and searches on the HCRU Knowledge Graph using a sub-module for the ‘Identification of HCR for a given diagnosis’ that is in charge of identifying for a given diagnosis the related subgraph of the HCRU KG (see figure 20 ). [0105] The HCRU KG includes resources and services, and the diagnosis related information includes a diagnosis and its relations to other symptoms, drugs, and treatments. The relations of drugs and treatments can thus be linked to the HCRU KG. [0106] This search collects potential health care resources and services associated with the new ‘status’ of the patient, after his/her new diagnosis.” Examiner notes that potential health care resources and services is data elements; patient is instances);
and inferring knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements absent from the knowledge data, after completion of a full search for valid result branches (Villazon Paragraph 89; “check for a new medical service which is not in the HCRU KG (S180), validate the service by clinicians (S190) and store the new medical service in the correct group (S200)” Examiner notes that to check for a new medical service which is not in the HCRU KG/missing data elements a full search for valid result branches is required; the knowledge data is inferred/validated by the clinicians and instantiated missing data elements/store the new medical service in the correct group)
Villazon does not teach creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances
filtering the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets;
creating one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders.
However, Helvik does teach creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances (Helvik Paragraph 38; “The determined relationships may be updated in real-time or substantially real-time. For example, if metadata associated with a particular content item identifies a first individual, Cate Smith, as an author of the content item and the metadata associated with the particular content item identifies a second individual, Luke Jones, as an individual that subsequently edited, commented on, or cited the content item in another content item, the relationship system 130 may update and/or create a relationship between Luke Jones, Cate Smith and/or the various content items and/or topics associated with the content items.” Examiner notes that placeholder could be anything within KG i.e. edges, nodes, or data; individuals as instances);
filtering the associated datasets by selecting and prioritizing the associated datasets; (Helvick Paragraph 88; “relationship properties of the content items and/or entities in a data source (e.g., authoring a document is more indicative of knowledge than viewing a document, viewing a document is more indicative of knowledge than receiving a document)” Examiner notes that looking at datasets of content items and prioritizing ones that have authoring relationship properties is filtering the associated datasets);
creating one or more new data elements and new associated datasets based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders. (Helvik Paragraph 89; “The system may generate (470) a time-based visualization. The time-based visualization may include only data items and/or content items that are determined to be more prominent such as previously described.” Examiner notes that the time-based visualization is associated data; Helvik Paragraph 97; “This information may then be used to aggregate various content items and/or data items together.” Examiner notes aggregated data is data elements);
Villazon and Helvik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using knowledge graphs to understand relationships between data elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Villazon to incorporate the teachings of Helvik and creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances; filtering the associated datasets; and creating one or more new data elements and new associated data based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders. The motivation to combining is “the visualization described herein may increase collaboration between entities of a group or an organization as it helps individuals contextualize other individuals within the group or organization. The visualization may also help individuals understand the skills, experience and knowledge of the various individuals in their group or organization.” (see Helvik Paragraph 19). This would allow Villazon to understand how the resources and services relate the potential diagnosis and react accordingly.
Regarding Claim 5, 12, 18, Villazon teaches The method of claim 1, further including: creating one or more [temporary data elements] and the missing data elements; (Villazon Paragraph 89 shows creating missing data elements; “check for a new medical service which is not in the HCRU KG (S180), validate the service by clinicians (S190) and store the new medical service in the correct group (S200).” Examiner notes that new medical service not in KG is missing data elements; storing the new medical service is creating it within the KG”);
and creating one or more additional associated datasets. (Villazon Paragraph 56 shows creating additional associated datasets; “performing graph analysis on the HCRU subgraph associated with the potential diagnosis and the patient HCRU subgraph to obtain an updated patient HCRU subgraph taking the potential diagnosis into account.” Examiner notes updated patient HCRU subgraph is additional associated datasets)
Villazon fails to teach creating temporary data elements. However Helvik teaches creating temporary data elements (Helvik Paragraph 38; “the relationship system 130 may update and/or create a relationship between Luke Jones, Cate Smith and/or the various content items and/or topics associated with the content items.” Examiner notes that temporary data elements include data elements that may never be removed; the created relationship is data elements)
Villazon and Helvik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using knowledge graphs to understand relationships between data elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Villazon to incorporate the teachings of Helvik and creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph based on identifying the one or more relationships between the data elements and the instances; filtering the associated datasets; and creating one or more new data elements and new associated data based on the filtering and the one or more placeholders. The motivation to combining is “the visualization described herein may increase collaboration between entities of a group or an organization as it helps individuals contextualize other individuals within the group or organization. The visualization may also help individuals understand the skills, experience and knowledge of the various individuals in their group or organization.” (see Helvik Paragraph 19). This would allow Villazon to understand how the resources and services relate the potential diagnosis and react accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, Villazon teaches The computer program product of claim 15, further including program instructions to: identify one or more relevant data patterns and the associated data (Villazon Paragraph 89 shows identifying data patterns; “perform process mining over available hospital logs and extract behavior patterns of the resources utilization for a particular medical institution” Examiner notes that behavior patterns is data patterns and data patterns must be identified before extracting occurs; Villazon Paragraph 98 shows identifying associated data; “In a nutshell, the HCRU KG customized subgraph provides information related to the health care resources, and this information is matched against the clinical history of the PCO, e.g., ER visits or inpatients.” Examiner notes that the clinical history of the PCO (Patient Clinical Object), e.g., ER visits or inpatients is associated data and is relevant to the subgraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DUC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6870. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/D.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147