DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 2-13-2025. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 represent method and system type claims. Therefore claims 1-16 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 13:
2A Prong 1:
method for consolidating first and second versions of a large scale dynamic Knowledge Organization System, wherein said Knowledge Organization System organizes data describing concepts and their relative attributes in a hierarchical data structure, and wherein first and second dates are associated with said first and second versions respectively wherein the computer-implemented method comprises:
identifying at least one amended concept, in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System, as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System;
identifying an evolutionary relationship between said amended concept in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System with respect to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can observe and identify).
thereby generating a consolidated hierarchical data structure comprising the concepts of said Knowledge Organization System at both first and second dates;
and computing a value indicating similarity between any pair of concepts in the consolidated hierarchical data structure, said pair being linked by at least one of: an evolutionary and hierarchical relationship wherein said value is computed based on at least one of semantic similarity of said concepts’ attributes and lexical similarity of said concepts' title or attributes, and associating the resulting similarity value with said at least one of evolutionary and hierarchical relationship
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user evaluate through computing).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Using data processing means;
Using data processing means configured to execute a similarity computation algorithm;
Using data processing means configured with the similarity computation algorithm;
Non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions;
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
recording the amended concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System into the first version, recording data indicating said evolutionary relationship into the first version of the Knowledge Organization System;
and storing said consolidated hierarchical data structure in a graph database memory element;
storing said consolidated hierarchical data structure in a graph database, wherein the graph database comprises vertices representing concepts and edges representing relationships,
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining complete separate versions of the Knowledge Organization System at each date;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
and wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure enables determining the state of the Knowledge Organization System at different time periods while reducing storage requirements compared to maintaining complete separate versions;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Using data processing means;
Using data processing means configured to execute a similarity computation algorithm;
Using data processing means configured with the similarity computation algorithm;
Non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions;
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
recording the amended concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System into the first version, recording data indicating said evolutionary relationship into the first version of the Knowledge Organization System;
and storing said consolidated hierarchical data structure in a graph database memory element;
storing said consolidated hierarchical data structure in a graph database, wherein the graph database comprises vertices representing concepts and edges representing relationships,
(MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” is a well understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thereby, a conclusion that the recording/storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining complete separate versions of the Knowledge Organization System at each date;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claims 2 and 14:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein said first version of said Knowledge Organization System is comprised in a previously consolidated hierarchical data structure comprising the concepts of said Knowledge Organization System at said first date and at an earlier date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure generated by the method reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining separate complete versions of the Knowledge Organization System for each of the first date, second date, and earlier date.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein said first version of said Knowledge Organization System is comprised in a previously consolidated hierarchical data structure comprising the concepts of said Knowledge Organization System at said first date and at an earlier date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure generated by the method reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining separate complete versions of the Knowledge Organization System for each of the first date, second date, and earlier date.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 3:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
associating a validity period attribute, having a starting date and an ending date, to each concept and to each hierarchical relationship between concepts.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
associating a validity period attribute, having a starting date and an ending date, to each concept and to each hierarchical relationship between concepts.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 4:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the evolutionary relationship comprises a deletion or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System, and wherein a validity ending date of the corresponding concept in the first version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate said first date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the evolutionary relationship comprises a deletion or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System, and wherein a validity ending date of the corresponding concept in the first version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate said first date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 5:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the evolutionary relationship comprises an addition or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System wherein the validity starting date of the corresponding concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate said second date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the evolutionary relationship comprises an addition or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System wherein the validity starting date of the corresponding concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate said second date
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 6:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
updating the hierarchical relationships between concepts in the previously consolidated hierarchical data structure following said change and consolidation
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
updating the hierarchical relationships between concepts in the previously consolidated hierarchical data structure following said change and consolidation
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
updating the hierarchical relationships includes updating the validity period of at least one hierarchical relationship
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
updating the hierarchical relationships includes updating the validity period of at least one hierarchical relationship
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
amending the validity period to extend to said second date, for each concept and hierarchical relationship that is not identified as being amended in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System, as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
amending the validity period to extend to said second date, for each concept and hierarchical relationship that is not identified as being amended in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System, as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 9:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
evolutionary relationship comprises a change if at least one attribute of said concept in the second version has changed as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
evolutionary relationship comprises a change if at least one attribute of said concept in the second version has changed as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
associating data describing a given concept's neighborhood in said consolidated hierarchical data structure,
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user associate data).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein said neighborhood comprises any concepts that are linked to said given concept by at least one of: the evolutionary and the hierarchical relationship, and having an associated similarity value that is higher than a predetermined threshold value
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
wherein said neighborhood comprises any concepts that are linked to said given concept by at least one of: the evolutionary and the hierarchical relationship, and having an associated similarity value that is higher than a predetermined threshold value
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
searching for a query string in said consolidated hierarchical data structure, wherein the search path follows said hierarchical relationships between the concepts, said evolutionary relationships between the concepts, or a combination of the said hierarchical relationships between the concepts and said evolutionary relationships between the concepts
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
searching for a query string in said consolidated hierarchical data structure, wherein the search path follows said hierarchical relationships between the concepts, said evolutionary relationships between the concepts, or a combination of the said hierarchical relationships between the concepts and said evolutionary relationships between the concepts
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding claim 12:
2A Prong 1:
NO ADDITIONAL ABSTRACT IDEAS
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein annotating data that is provided in a memory element, wherein a piece of data is identified that corresponds to the concept in the Knowledge Organization System and the identified piece of data is associated with the concept
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein annotating data that is provided in a memory element, wherein a piece of data is identified that corresponds to the concept in the Knowledge Organization System and the identified piece of data is associated with the concept
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The data processing means of claim 1 appears to be: The processing means may preferably comprise a data processor, such as a central processing unit, CPU, of a computing device.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkin et al. (“Tonkin” 20170185674 A1) in view of Kluin et al. (“Kluin” 20140244707 A1), Srinivas et al. (“Srinivas” 20200257683 A1).
Claim 1: Tonkin discloses a computer-implemented method for consolidating first and second versions of a large scale dynamic Knowledge Organization System, wherein said Knowledge Organization System organizes data describing concepts and their relative attributes in a hierarchical data structure, (Paragraphs 647 and 768; merge ontologies), wherein the computer-implemented method comprises:
using data processing means, identifying at least one amended concept, in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System, as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System (Paragraphs 258-260; pruned ontologies represent amended version (i.e. removed concepts) and 672-673; alignment mapping of versions);
using data processing means, identifying an evolutionary relationship between said amended concept in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System with respect to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System (Paragraphs 258-260 (pruned/amended) version); This pruned (removed) concepts represent evolutionary functions which are then identified between version; and Paragraphs 672-673; alignment mapping of versions;
using data processing means configured to execute a similarity computation algorithm, recording the amended concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System into the first version, recording data indicating said evolutionary relationship into the first version of the Knowledge Organization System, thereby generating a consolidated hierarchical data structure comprising the concepts of said Knowledge Organization System (Paragraphs: 258-260 (amended/pruned versions stored as a merged ontology) 433; combined ontologies, 768-773; [0768] “A merge process can then be performed to produce a merged ontology 1906, although this is optional and will depend on the preferred implementation. If the user decides to merge the ontologies then a number of decisions need to be made, including: [0769] Determine whether the merge d ontology should be Ontology 1 into Ontology 2, or vice versa, or whether the merged ontology should be given a new URI.”)
and storing said consolidated hierarchical, wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining complete separate versions of the Knowledge Organization System at each date; (Paragraphs: 258-260 (attributes compared and stored in merged ontology), 511, 625; provides capability to provide a single hierarchical structure). The merging process found in 0768 can reduce storage;
and using said data processing means configured with the similarity computation algorithm, computing a value indicating similarity between any pair of concepts in the consolidated hierarchical data structure, said pair being linked by at least one of: an evolutionary and hierarchical relationship (Paragraphs 508 (semantic match value), 602 sameness value 625; mathematical basis (value) of sameness, this is incorporated into structure);
wherein said value is computed based on at least one of semantic similarity of said concepts' attributes and lexical similarity of said concepts' title or attributes, and associating the resulting similarity value with said at least one of evolutionary and hierarchical relationship (Paragraphs 258-260 (attributes compared and stored in merged ontology) 263 (semantic matcher using concepts/lexical database) 602, 790 and 798 (match values from merge)).
Tonkin discloses version determination (Paragraph 258-259; pruned version), however may not explicitly disclose and wherein first and second dates are associated with said first and second versions respectively; and versions at both first and second dates. Kluin is provided because it discloses a method editing a graph and combining data (Figures 3a-b and Paragraph 39), additional the revisions are captured and provides a timestamp (Paragraph 15).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices and provide date tracking of merging within Tonkin. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it provides additional data points roe reconstruction of versions (Kluin: Paragraph 15).
Tonka may not explicitly disclose data structure in a graph database memory element;
Srinivas is provided because it discloses a method of utilizing a graph database for a unified knowledge graph (Paragraphs 16, 18, 53 and 69-70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices and provide a graph database within Tonkin. One would have been motivated to provide the graph functionality because it provides a useful tool for managing and analyzing data.
Claim 2: Tonkin, Kluin and Srinivas disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein said first version of said Knowledge Organization System is comprised in a previously consolidated hierarchical data structure comprising the concepts of said Knowledge Organization System at said first date and at an earlier date, wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure generated by the method reduces storage requirements compared to maintaining separate complete versions of the Knowledge Organization System for each of the first date, second date, and earlier date.
(Tonkin: Table 6, provides prune versions (overlapping) Paragraphs 176 (previously defined ontologies) 297, updated (previous usage) ontologies used and Kluin: Paragraphs 15 timestamp for a state in time).
Claim 10: Tonkin, Kluin and Srinivas disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further including: associating data describing a given concept's neighborhood in said consolidated hierarchical data structure, wherein said neighborhood comprises any concepts that are linked to said given concept by at least one of: the evolutionary and the hierarchical relationship, and having an associated similarity value that is higher than a predetermined threshold value (Tonkin: Paragraphs: 263-264, 268 score subclass/superclass neighbor 292-293 concepts aligned based on mathematical similarity).
Claim 11: Tonkin, Kluin and Srinivas disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising searching for a query string in said consolidated hierarchical data structure, wherein the search path follows said hierarchical relationships between the concepts, said evolutionary relationships between the concepts, or a combination of the said hierarchical relationships between the concepts and said evolutionary relationships between the concepts (Tonkin: Paragraphs 253; hierarchical paths are identified in ontology (i.e. relation parent/child) 247, 304 and 422 query functionality of established ontologies).
Claim 12: Tonkin, Kluin and Srinivas disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein annotating data that is provided in a memory element, wherein a piece of data is identified that corresponds to the concept in the Knowledge Organization System and the identified piece of data is associated with the concept (Tonkin: Paragraphs 521 and 537 definitions (annotations), use by match module to identify relationship).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding storing said consolidated hierarchical data structure in a graph database, wherein the graph database comprises vertices representing concepts and edges representing relationships, and wherein the consolidated hierarchical data structure enables determining the state of the Knowledge Organization System at different time periods while reducing storage requirements compared to maintaining complete separate versions
Tonkin: 19c-e Paragraphs 647 and 768-769; merging functionality); 658 and 676 alignment map
Kluin: Figures 3a-b and Paragraph 39), revisions are captured and provides a timestamp (Paragraph 15).
Srinivas discloses a method of utilizing a graph database for a unified knowledge graph (Paragraphs 16, 18, 53 and 69-70).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 2 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkin et al. (“Tonkin” 20170185674 A1), Kluin et al. (“Kluin” 20140244707 A1) and Srinivas et al. (“Srinivas” 20200257683 A1) in further view of Huang et al. (“Huang” 20210216882 A1).
Claim 3: Tonkin, Kluin and Srinivas disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 1 but may not explicitly disclose further including associating a validity period attribute, having a starting date and an ending date, to each concept and to each hierarchical relationship between concepts.
Huang is provided because it provides a temporal knowledge graph and within that temporal knowledge graph provides valid time intervals (i.e. start/end) for a relationship pairing (subject/object)(Paragraphs 12 and 40). This functionality could be applied to pairing/alignment found in Tonkin.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices and provide validity periods/intervals for the versions within Tonkin. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it provides additional data points offering precision of expression relating to time information for improved mapping.
Claim 4: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein the evolutionary relationship comprises a deletion or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System, and wherein a validity ending date of the corresponding concept in the first version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate said first date (Huang: abstract and Paragraphs 8, 17). By determining a target time interval the first date for the KOS/Knowledge graph will indicate the preferred date.
Claim 5: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 4 wherein the evolutionary relationship comprises an addition or change of a concept in the second version as compared to the first version of said Knowledge Organization System (Tonkin: Paragraphs 258-260; pruned ontologies represent amended version (i.e. removed concepts));
and wherein the validity starting date of the corresponding concept from the second version of the Knowledge Organization System is set to indicate, said second date (Huang: Paragraphs 8, 17 and 42; fusion of time interval/validity can be modified to include the targeted date/time).
Claim 6: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 4 further including updating the hierarchical relationships between concepts in the previously consolidated hierarchical data structure following said change and consolidation (Tonkin: Paragraphs 511, 625, 641, 676 (mapping performed for each step in order to identify hierarchical relationships)).
Claim 7: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 6, wherein updating the hierarchical relationships includes updating the validity period of at least one hierarchical relationship (Huang: Paragraphs 8, 17 and 42; fusion of time interval/validity can be modified to include the targeted date/time).
Claim 8: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 6, further including amending the validity period to extend to said second date, for each concept and hierarchical relationship that is not identified as being amended in the second version of the Knowledge Organization System, as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System (Huang: Paragraphs 8, 17 and 42; fusion) The fusion of time interval/validity can extend the validity period (through stitching) in order to capture determined targeted date/time.
Claim 9: Tonkin, Kluin, Srinivas and Huang disclose a computer-implemented method according to claim 8, wherein the evolutionary relationship comprises a change if at least one attribute of said concept in the second version has changed as compared to the first version of the Knowledge Organization System(Paragraphs 258-260; pruned ontologies represent amended version (i.e. modified concepts) which will be an evolutionary relationship).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Regarding the 101 rejection, after consultation, it is believed that the claim language incorporating the processing means and graph database provides structure however, the components are still considered to be generic computer components. Further the consolidation of a data structure at a high level is still considered abstract.
Regarding the graph database, Srinivas is now incorporated.
Further, Tonkin provides consolidation as recited by the merger process found in 0768-0769 “A merge process can then be performed to produce a merged ontology 1906, although this is optional and will depend on the preferred implementation. If the user decides to merge the ontologies then a number of decisions need to be made, including: [0769] Determine whether the merged ontology should be Ontology 1 into Ontology 2, or vice versa, or whether the merged ontology should be given a new URI.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
MERGING STRUCTURED TEXT USING TEMPORAL KNOWLEGDE, HUNTER © 2002, Pages 29-65.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
8-9-2025