DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-18, and 20 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1, 3-18, and 20, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• "document structure graph"
• "document"
• "knowledge graph"
• "corpus"
• "nodes"
• "edges"
• parent-child edges between nodes representing document items and nodes representing their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy, thereby encoding structural context of document items in said knowledge graph
• "search queries"
• "hierarchy"
• "language"
• "traverse"
• "item-types"
• "searchable representation"
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A computer-implemented method for producing a searchable representation of information contained in a corpus of documents, the method comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• "document structure graph"
• "document"
• "knowledge graph"
• "corpus"
• "nodes"
• "edges"
• parent-child edges between nodes representing document items and nodes representing their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy, thereby encoding structural context of document items in said knowledge graph
• "search queries"
• "hierarchy"
• "language"
• "traverse"
• "item-types"
• "searchable representation"
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "storing"
(2) A "knowledge graph database"
A “storing” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storing” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “knowledge graph database” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
This “knowledge graph database” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "storing"
(2) A "knowledge graph database"
A “storing” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “knowledge graph database” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein said predetermined item-types comprise at least a plurality of item types selected from the group consisting of: document title; subtitle; document author; document abstract; author affiliation; chapter; section heading; subsection heading; paragraph; table; picture; caption; keyword; citation; table-of-contents; list item; sub-list item; table; table column-header; table row-header; table cell; list in table cell; code; form; formula; and footnote.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches a set of data designed for mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein said language items comprise named entities.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches a set of language data designed for mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the knowledge graph further includes edges, representing ancestral relations, between nodes representing document items in each document and nodes representing at least one ancestor of their respective parent document items, in said structural hierarchy for that document.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches data arrangements for mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. A method as claimed in claim 5 including, in generating the knowledge graph:
applying a machine learning model to identify relations between language items identified in document items and language items identified in nodes representing at least one ancestor of their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy; and
for each relation between a pair of language items identified by said model, including an edge, representing that relation, in the knowledge graph between the nodes representing those language items.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches application of a mathematical machine learning model. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. A method as claimed in claim 5 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface a mechanism for selecting traversal of edges representing ancestral relations between document items in search operations for input search queries.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. The edges may be numbered and the selected number entered to the generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. A method as claimed in claim 5 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface at least one predefined template defining a type of search query, said template specifying traversal of an edge representing an ancestral relation between document items in a search operation for said type of search query.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the knowledge graph further includes edges, representing neighbor relations, between nodes representing document items in each document and nodes representing their respective succeeding document items in said succession of document items, for that document.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches data arrangements for mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. A method as claimed in claim 6 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface at least one predefined template defining a type of search query, said template specifying traversal of an edge representing a neighbor relation between document items in a search operation for said type of search query.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. A method as claimed in claim 9 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface a mechanism for selecting traversal of edges representing neighbor relations between document items in search operations for input search queries.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the knowledge graph includes:
edges between a node representing a document item and nodes representing language items identified in that document item; and
edges between a node representing a document and nodes representing document items in that document.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches data arrangements for mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
13. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein generating the knowledge graph further comprises:
applying a machine learning model to identify relations between language items identified in document items and language items identified in their respective parent document items; and
for each relation between a pair of language items identified by said model, including an edge, representing that relation, in the knowledge graph between the nodes representing those language items.
Applicant’s Claim 13 merely teaches application of a mathematical machine learning model. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 13 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. A method as claimed in claim 1 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface a mechanism for selecting traversal of edges representing parent-child relations between document items in search operations for input search queries.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
15. A method as claimed in claim 1 including:
providing a graphical user interface, for display by a user computer, for input of search queries to the knowledge graph database; and
providing in said interface at least one predefined template defining a type of search query, said template specifying traversal of an edge representing a parent-child relation between document items in a search operation for said type of search query.
Applicant’s Claim 15 merely teaches provision of a generic graphical user interface. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 15 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. A method as claimed in claim 1 including generating the document structure graph for a document via a recursive process which identifies a parent document item for each document item, sequentially in order of said succession, in dependence on relative location in said predefined hierarchy of the item-type of that item and the item-type of items earlier in said succession.
Applicant’s Claim 16 merely teaches “generating” a graph. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 16 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. A method as claimed in claim 1 including preprocessing each document in said corpus to parse the document into said succession of document items annotated with said item-types.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches parsing a document (i.e., mental steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “18. A computer program product for producing a searchable representation of information contained in a corpus of documents, said computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions being executable by a computing system to cause the computing system to…” Therefore, it is some sort of “program product” that comprises a “computer readable storage medium”, rather than a “computer readable medium”, itself. A “program product” is not the same as a “computer readable medium”. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “NO”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 18 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 18 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• "document structure graph"
• "document"
• "knowledge graph"
• "corpus"
• "nodes"
• "edges"
• parent-child edges between nodes representing document items and nodes representing their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy, thereby encoding structural context of document items in said knowledge graph
• "search queries"
• "hierarchy"
• "language"
• "traverse"
• "item-types"
• "searchable representation"
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "computer readable storage medium"
(2) A "computing system"
A “computer readable storage medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “computer readable storage medium” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “computing system” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "computer readable storage medium"
(2) A "computing system"
A “computer readable storage medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 18 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “20. An information extraction system for producing a searchable representation of information contained in a corpus of documents each comprising a succession of document items of predetermined item-types defined for the corpus, the system comprising…” Therefore, it is a “system” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 20 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 20 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• "document structure graph"
• "document"
• "knowledge graph"
• "corpus"
• "nodes"
• "edges"
• parent-child edges between nodes representing document items and nodes representing their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy, thereby encoding structural context of document items in said knowledge graph
• "search queries"
• "hierarchy"
• "language"
• "traverse"
• "item-types"
• "searchable representation"
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "memory"
A “memory” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “memory” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A "memory"
A “memory” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 20 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reasons Claims are not Rejected Over the Art of Record
The closest art of record of Dorpinghaus, et al., Towards Context in Large Scale Biomedical Knowledge Graphs, arXiv:2001.08392v1 [cs.DB], 23 JAN 2020, pp. 1-26 fails to expressly teach:
Claim 1’s, 18’s, and 20’s "structural context of document"
Claim 1’s, 18’s, and 20’s "document structure graph"
Relevant Art
Art that is relevant to this action, but not cited is the following:
Dorpinghaus, et al., Towards Context in Large Scale Biomedical Knowledge Graphs, arXiv:2001.08392v1 [cs.DB], 23 JAN 2020, pp. 1-26
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 MAR 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
The Examiner has asserted that the claims are directed to abstract ideas, including mental processes and mathematical relationships. Applicant does not concede that the claims are abstract, but for purposes of argument, addresses the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Integration into a Practical Application
As described in the specification, paragraph [0022]
[0001] By providing parent-child edges in the knowledge graph based on the document structure graphs for documents, methods embodying the invention assimilate the structures of the documents themselves in the overall knowledge representation. Information which is implicit in the hierarchical structure of a document as a whole can be embedded in the knowledge graph and extracted via search operations. The structural layout of a document, such as titles, section headers, and sub-headers for sub-sections at various nested levels, expresses valuable information that may not otherwise be expressed in the text of individual document items. For example, a key term may be stated in a section header and not repeated in paragraphs under that header, or information in an introductory statement may relate to all items in a subsequent list. Methods embodying the invention can capture such additional information encoded in the structural hierarchy of each document. The resulting knowledge graph thus enables extraction of more information from a corpus than can be derived from individual document items in the documents. This constitutes a significant advance in knowledge extraction systems, offering improved search processes, better search results, and better solutions to the real-life problems supported by these searches.
Applicant submits that this improvement is embodied in the independent claims by way of the amended limitations:
"generating a knowledge graph comprising first nodes, representing document items in the corpus and second nodes representing language items identified in those document items, interconnecting the first nodes and second nodes by edges representing a defined relation between items represented by the nodes interconnected by that edge, wherein said edges include parent-child edges between nodes representing document items and nodes representing their respective parent document items in said structural hierarchy, thereby encoding structural context of document items in said knowledge graph" and,
"producing said searchable representation by traversing edges of the graph in response to input search queries wherein traversal of said parent-child edges enables retrieval of structural context for search results"
Considered as a whole, representative claim 1 provides the practical application of extracting more information from a corpus of documents than can be derived from the individual document items. producing a searchable representation of a corpus of documents including that information, and providing results of an initial search of the representation to a user,.
The amended claim now recites specific technical features that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application:
These features go beyond mere data manipulation or generic computer implementation. They reflect a technological improvement in how document structure and semantic relationships are leveraged to enhance search functionality.
As such, for at least the reasons discussed above, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's amendments are to an improved knowledge graph and use, thereof. The knowledge graph is a series of mental steps. Improvement to an abstraction is still abstract.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Dependent claims 3-17 are also allowable as are analogous independent claims 18, and 20. Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of these claims be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Similar arguments for similar independent Claims 18 and 20 are similarly unpersuasive. Accordingly, there is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to dependent Claims 3-17.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
03 APR 2026
Prosecution Insights