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
101 Rejection Arguments
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 14-15, that the amendments to claim 1 show that it is directed to a method, does not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner response:
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 “identifying data elements”, “creating one or more subgraphs”, “selecting one of the one or more subgraphs”, “modifying the knowledge graph with one or more subgraphs”, “identifying one or more relationships between data elements and instances”, “creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph”, “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”, “inferring knowledge data in the knowledge graph to instantiate missing data elements”, and “instantiating the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern” in such a way that a person could not perform the listed actions having observed the knowledge graph. Therefore, the listed steps are interpreted as an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 15-16, that amended independent claim 1 recites features beyond merely tying the invention to a particular operating environment including generic implementation of a computer (or computer based implementation) without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the processor performing the method is no interpreted as an abstract idea, but as a generic computer component merely applying the judicial exception. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(d) “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application… Merely reciting the words "apply it." Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 16-19, that the specificity of the claimed operations amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and imposes meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. Thus, the features of the claims are unconventional and specific, and as such, the features are beyond a mere abstract idea implemented on a computer.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the processor performing the method is no interpreted as an abstract idea, but as a generic computer component merely applying the judicial exception. As stated in MPEP 2106.05 “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:… Adding the words "apply it"" Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 18-19, that the claim integrates that concept into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement in graph-based data processing. The claim recites: a two-stage processing architecture, where placeholders are created during traversal but not instantiated; a full-search gating constraint, requiring completion of a traversal before any instantiation occurs; and pattern-based validation of result branches, using a graph pattern comprising a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges. This ordered combination produces a technical improvement in the operation of a knowledge graph system, which includes controlled and consistent graph modification, avoidance of premature or invalid data instantiation, and improved accuracy of graph pattern identification through full-search evaluation. These are specific improvements to computer functionality in the context of graph traversal and data structure manipulation, not generic data processing.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
103 Rejection Arguments
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 21, 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”.
Examiner response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art does teach the limitation mentioned. Villazon teaches validating missing medical services within the knowledge graph. Examiner interprets that searching through the knowledge graph as performing a search for valid result branches (having all medical resources) and if valid result branches are not present then instantiate missing data elements.
All dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective base claims and are rejected for at least the same reasons.
Applicant asserts:
Applicant argues, on page 22, that the prior arts solve unrelated problems and have not motivation to combine.
Examiner response:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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..
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, 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 18 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, as temporary graph elements during the traversal of 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.
“instantiating the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships.” 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 instantiate/mentally keep track of the placeholders as corresponding data elements after a complete full search and validating result branches.
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, as temporary graph elements during the traversal of 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.
“instantiate the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships.” 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 instantiate/mentally keep track of the placeholders as corresponding data elements after a complete full search and validating result branches.
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 as temporary graph elements during the traversal of 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.
“program instructions 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.
“program instructions to instantiate the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships.” 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 instantiate/mentally keep track of the placeholders as corresponding data elements after a complete full search and validating result branches.
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”) in further view of Richong Zhang et al; “Knowledge graphs completion via probabilistic reasoning” available online Feb 19, 2020 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
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);
Villazon does not teach creating one or more placeholders in the knowledge graph, as temporary graph elements during the traversal of 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, as temporary graph elements during the traversal of 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; temporary graph elements );
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);
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Villazon and Helvik. Villazon teaches A computer apparatus to identify healthcare resources used by a patient given a potential diagnosis utilizing knowledge graphs. Helvik teaches methods for analyzing data items and relationships between those data items. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Villazon and Helvik to understand how the resources and services relate the potential diagnosis and react accordingly “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).
Villazon and Helvik does not teach 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
and instantiating the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships.
However, Zhang does teach 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 (Zhang Page 147 Paragraph 7; “one may wish to query if every possible triple (h, r, t) ∈ V ×R ×V exists as a fact… The graph composed of such candidate triples (as well as the observed triples) will be denoted by G ∗, and referred to as the query graph .” Examiner notes that knowledge data (new edges) is inferred/generated in the knowledge graph (query graph) to instantiate missing data elements (missing edges), after completion of a full search for valid result branches (one may wish to query if every possible triple))
and instantiating the placeholders as corresponding data elements only after the completion of the full search, and after the validation of the result branches satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships. (Zhang Page 147 Paragraph 8; “For i = 1 , 2 , . . . , G i is constructed from G i −1 as follows. For any edge e 1 in G i −1 , if ( r ( e 1 ), r 2 ) ~ γ for some γ ∈ , then a new edge e 2 with r(e 2 ) = r 2 is generated to form a new pattern with e 1 ; For any two edges e 1 and e 2 in G i −1 , if e 1 and e 2 share a common vertex in G i −1 , and if there is a “soft rule” ( r ( e 1 ), r ( e 2 ), r 3 ) ~ γ for some γ ∈ , then a new edge e 3 with r(e 3 ) = r 3 is generated to form a triangle pattern with e 1 and e 2 … For each edge e ∈ E(G ∗) , we introduce two binary random variables X e and Y e , where X e indicates if edge e should exist and Y e indicates if e is observed in G. We use X to denote all X e ’s and Y to denote all Y e ’s.” Examiner notes that instantiating the placeholder as corresponding data elements (we introduce two binary random variables… where X e indicates if edge e should exist) only after the completion of the full search (query for triple), and after the validation of the result satisfies a graph pattern, the graph pattern including a search pattern for a subgraph including nodes and edges defined by the one or more relationships (new patterns are formed from edges is validated using binary random variables to indicate if the edge should exist and therefore validate the relationship))
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Villazon, Helvik, and Zhang. Villazon teaches A computer apparatus to identify healthcare resources used by a patient given a potential diagnosis utilizing knowledge graphs. Helvik teaches methods for analyzing data items and relationships between those data items. Zhang teaches an efficient model which uses association rules to make inferences for knowledge graph completion. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Villazon, Helvik, and Zhang to outperform state-of-the-art approaches in knowledge based completion “Experiments show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in knowledge base completion (KBC) tasks.” (Zhang Abstract).
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)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Villazon and Helvik. Villazon teaches A computer apparatus to identify healthcare resources used by a patient given a potential diagnosis utilizing knowledge graphs. Helvik teaches methods for analyzing data items and relationships between those data items. One of ordinary skill would have motivation to combine Villazon and Helvik to understand how the resources and services relate the potential diagnosis and react accordingly “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).
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
/ERIC NILSSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights