DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the amendment filed October 16th, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending, of which claims 1-7 are currently rejected.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed October 16th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome some 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 16th, 2025.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Arguments presented by Applicant are not persuasive.
Applicant makes reference to a Memorandum issued by the USPTO on August 4, 2025 (Reminders on evaluation subjection matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101) (hereinafter “the Memorandum”) and alleges that several points of the Memorandum are relevant to the claims recited in this application, on Pg. 7 of Applicant Remarks. Applicant alleges the claims do not recite an exception (point I), that the claims reflect a particular solution (point II), and that arguments presented prove that the 101 rejections should not be considered “more likely than not” appropriate (point III). Examiner respectfully disagrees. These points will be discussed in further detail below.
For point I (Pgs. 8-9 of Applicant Remarks), Applicant further alleges that claim 1 is directed to a computer-centric technical improvement, more specifically the inaccurate feature extraction that is resolved by the inventive aspect of the claim, which is similar to Example 2 of “Abstract Idea Examples” (January 27, 2015). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although claim 1 recites “extract one or more feature values based on the plurality of vectors” this limitation is simply taking an output from the vectors which are obtained through the math that is being performed, and in essence is merely generally linking the performed math in the previous limitations to the field of neural networks. The recited invention centers on an improvement in the math, not the functionality of the neural network. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. For at least the same reasons, claims 6-7 are also not patent eligible.
As to point II, Applicant alleges that the claim is patentable under prong two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and points to the limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Pg. 10 Applicant Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim, at best, generally links the judicial exception to the field of neural networks. Additionally, the additional elements that Applicant points to in order to prove that the claim is integrated into a practical application fall under judicial exceptions and insignificant extra-solution activities. As to the limitation “identifying a plurality of paths each having a vertex constituting the graph as an end point, and obtaining a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element”, identifying a plurality of paths can be done by the human mind, or with pen and paper, falling under mental steps and mathematical relationships, and additionally the obtaining (merely data gathering) recited in the second half of the limitation falls under insignificant extra-solution activity, more specifically well understood routine and conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As to the limitation “obtaining a plurality of vectors by merging the plurality of first sets and the plurality of second sets” this limitation also falls under insignificant extra-solution activity, more specifically a well understood routine and conventional activity as discussed with the previous limitation. Additionally, the merging of the sets to obtain these vectors are math as this merging would require calculation as indicated in Pg. 11 Lines 15-21 of the instant Specification. As to the limitation “extracting one or more features values…”, this limitation ultimately recites mathematical operations in order to obtain feature values as evidenced by Pgs. 4 (with respect to Fig. 1) and 8 of the Instant Specification. Additionally, the second part of the limitation starting with “wherein each of the plurality of paths…” merely describes mathematical relationships (a graph is math and determining of vertices that are adjacent to each other would also entail math). It is also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. For at least the same reasons, claims 6-7 are also not patent eligible.
As to point III (Pg. 11 of Applicant Remarks), Applicant alleges that claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea, and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities. However, as analyzed before with regards to point II, all new limitations recite either more math (which is an abstract idea), or an insignificant extra-solution activity falling under well-understood routine and conventional activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. For the same reasons claims 6 and 7 are also not patent eligible.
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant has amended claims 1-7 and resolved the issues relating to 112(b) as previously set forth in the Office Action mailed July 16th, 2025. However, new 112(b) rejections have been made. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 USC § 112(b) is sustained.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding 102 and 103 rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. On Pg. 13 of Applicant Remarks, Applicant alleges that De Haan et al. (US 2021/0334623 A1) (hereinafter “De Haan”) does not anticipate Claim 1 (and therefore claims 6 and 7) as De Haan does not teach the newly amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
De Haan teaches:
identify a neighborhood structure of a vertex constituting the graph, and obtain a plurality of first sets having vertexes constituting the neighborhood structure as an element (¶ 0007 calculating a node neighborhood for each of the nodes of the graph, the plurality of node neighborhoods i.e., first sets);
identify a plurality of paths each having a vertex constituting the graph as an end point, and obtain a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element (¶ 0007 calculating the edge neighborhood i.e., path with node i.e., vertex as endpoint as shown in Fig. 11 with any of the nodes being an endpoint, edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network, i.e., second sets; ¶ 0074 discusses ordering of nodes in edge neighborhoods i.e., paths/second sets); and
obtain a plurality of vectors by merging the plurality of first sets and the plurality of second sets (¶ 0057 plurality of vectors, one for each node; ¶ 0075 - ¶ 0076 shows merging of first and second sets for kernel computations and convolutions through equation in order to obtain vectors); and
extract one or more feature values based on the plurality of vectors (¶ 0057 extracting of features via vectors, a vector for each node),
wherein each of the plurality of paths represents a row of vertexes in the graph, and vertexes adjacent to each other in the row represents vertexes adjacent to each other via a side in the graph (¶ 0048 vertexes i.e., nodes adjacent to each other via an edge i.e., side; ¶ 0070 nodes i.e., vertexes are connected via edges i.e., sides; ¶ 0007 calculating the edge neighborhood i.e., path with node i.e., vertex as endpoint as shown in Fig. 11 with any of the nodes being an endpoint, edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network as plurality of paths i.e., second sets; ¶ 0074 discusses ordering of nodes in edge neighborhoods i.e., paths/second sets; Fig. 11 shows paths as row of vertexes).
Therefore, does in fact De Haan teaches claim 1 (and therefore claims 6 and 7).
There are new reasons of rejection as necessitated by amendments. See Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 and Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites calculation using two sets of data, the neighborhood structure of a vertex, and a path having the vertex, in order to obtain an output vector. Below are the limitations of claim 1 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
identify a neighborhood structure of a vertex constituting the graph, (mental steps)
identify a plurality of paths each having a vertex constituting the graph as an end point (mental steps),
merging the plurality of first sets and the plurality of second sets (mathematical concepts);
extract one or more feature values based on the plurality of first sets and the plurality of second sets (mathematical concepts); and
wherein each of the plurality of paths represents a row of vertexes in the graph, and vertexes adjacent to each other in the row represents vertexes adjacent to each other via a side in the graph (mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”. Identifying a structure and paths can be done in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper if need be. Additionally, the relationship between the plurality of paths and rows of vertexes in the graph is a mathematical relationship as the usage of graphs for computations is math. The merging of the sets to obtain these vectors are math as this merging would require calculation as indicated in Pg. 11 Lines 15-21 of the instant Specification.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1:
A graph information calculation apparatus
a memory
at least one processor
receive a graph as an input
obtain a plurality of first sets having vertexes constituting the neighborhood structure as an element
obtain a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element
obtain a plurality of vectors.
The graph information calculation apparatus, memory, and processor are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). All additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
receive a graph as an input
obtain a plurality of first sets having vertexes constituting the neighborhood structure as an element
obtain a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element
obtain a plurality of vectors
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These additional elements are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “receive a graph as an input”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “obtain a plurality of first sets having vertexes constituting the neighborhood structure as an element”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “obtain a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “obtain a plurality of vectors”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 2 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation on vectors provided in an element of the plurality of first sets and an element of the plurality of second sets (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 2:
the graph information calculation apparatus
the at least one processor.
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements: “the graph information calculation apparatus”, and “the at least one processor”, all of which at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 3 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation of multiplying a number of elements of the plurality of second sets by a vector provided in a vertex being an element of one of the plurality of first sets (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 3:
The graph information calculation apparatus
The at least one processor.
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements: “the graph information calculation apparatus”, and “the at least one processor”, all of which at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 4 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation of multiplying an inverse number of a number of elements of the plurality of second sets by a vector provided in a vertex being an element of one of the plurality of first sets (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 4:
The graph information calculation apparatus
The at least one processor.
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements: “the graph information calculation apparatus”, and “the at least one processor”, all of which at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 5 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to obtain the plurality of second sets further having a side constituting the plurality of paths as an element (mathematical concepts).
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 5:
The graph information calculation apparatus
The at least one processor.
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements: “the graph information calculation apparatus”, and “the at least one processor”, all of which at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Herein, claim 6 is directed to the statutory category of process, thus also satisfying Step 1. Moreover, at Step 2A none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (“a graph information calculation apparatus”) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As explained above, there is one additional element: “a graph information calculation apparatus” which at best is the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
As disclosed in the claim in light of the specification, described are mere instructions to apply an exception, invoking the computing elements merely as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2105.06(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction for performing the method of claim 6 that is practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Herein, claim 7 is directed to the statutory category of manufacture, thus also satisfying Step 1. Moreover, at Step 2A none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (“non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a computer”) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As explained above, there are two additional elements: “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a computer” which at best is the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
As disclosed in the claim in light of the specification, described are mere instructions to apply an exception, invoking the computing elements merely as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2105.06(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a vertex” on line 8. It is unclear if this mention of “a vertex” is the same vertex as recited on line 5 or another vertex. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the vertex of line 8 will be construed to be the same vertex of line 5.
Because claims 2-5 depend upon claim 1, claims 2-5 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a vertex” on line 7. It is unclear if this mention of “a vertex” is the same vertex as recited on line 4 or another vertex. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the vertex of line 7 will be construed to be the same vertex of line 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a vertex” on line 8. It is unclear if this mention of “a vertex” is the same vertex as recited on line 5 or another vertex. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the vertex of line 8 will be construed to be the same vertex of line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by De Haan et al. (US 2021/0334623 A1) (hereinafter “De Haan”).
Regarding claim 1, De Haan teaches:
A graph information calculation apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 1 118 memory present in apparatus; ¶ 0008 memory coupled to processor storing instructions to be executed; ¶ 0097); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Fig. 1 102 CPU; ¶ 0008 processor coupled to memory to execute instructions stored in memory; ¶ 0097):
receive a graph as an input (¶ 0007 receiving graph network i.e., graph as input),
identify a neighborhood structure of a vertex constituting the graph, and obtain a plurality of first sets having vertexes constituting the neighborhood structure as an element (¶ 0007 calculating a node neighborhood for each of the nodes of the graph, the plurality of node neighborhoods i.e., first sets);
identify a plurality of paths each having a vertex constituting the graph as an end point, and obtain a plurality of second sets each having vertexes constituting one of the plurality of paths as an element (¶ 0007 calculating the edge neighborhood i.e., path with node i.e., vertex as endpoint as shown in Fig. 11 with any of the nodes being an endpoint, edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network, i.e., second sets; ¶ 0074 discusses ordering of nodes in edge neighborhoods i.e., paths/second sets); and
obtain a plurality of vectors by merging the plurality of first sets and the plurality of second sets (¶ 0057 plurality of vectors, one for each node; ¶ 0075 - ¶ 0076 shows merging of first and second sets for kernel computations and convolutions through equation in order to obtain vectors); and
extract one or more feature values based on the plurality of vectors (¶ 0057 extracting of features via vectors, a vector for each node),
wherein each of the plurality of paths represents a row of vertexes in the graph, and vertexes adjacent to each other in the row represents vertexes adjacent to each other via a side in the graph (¶ 0048 vertexes i.e., nodes adjacent to each other via an edge i.e., side; ¶ 0070 nodes i.e., vertexes are connected via edges i.e., sides; ¶ 0007 calculating the edge neighborhood i.e., path with node i.e., vertex as endpoint as shown in Fig. 11 with any of the nodes being an endpoint, edge neighborhood class representative to each of the edges of the graph network as plurality of paths i.e., second sets; ¶ 0074 discusses ordering of nodes in edge neighborhoods i.e., paths/second sets; Fig. 11 shows paths as row of vertexes).
Regarding claim 2, De Haan teaches:
The graph information calculation apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation on vectors provided in an element of the plurality of first sets and an element of the plurality of second sets (¶ 0082-0083 input vectors for calculation of kernel and calculation of kernel is carried out via the node neighborhoods i.e., first sets and edge neighborhoods i.e., second sets).
Regarding claim 3, De Haan teaches:
The graph information calculation apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation of multiplying a number of elements of the plurality of second sets by a vector provided in a vertex being an element of one of the plurality of first sets(¶ 0048 each vertex has its feature vector; ¶ 0090 once edge neighborhoods i.e., second sets and node neighborhoods i.e., and first sets have been determined and classified, they are used to determine a kernel constraint, which is further used for convolutional kernel operation i.e., multiplication between elements as evidenced by ¶ 0080 and Equation (6)).
Regarding claim 5, De Haan teaches:
The graph information calculation apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to obtain the plurality of second sets further having a side constituting the plurality of paths as an element (¶ 0093 each edge neighborhood i.e., plurality of paths calculation/second sets has path itself as an element; ¶ 0074 discusses ordering of nodes in edge neighborhood i.e., path/second set).
Claim 6 is directed towards the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 7 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the instructions to execute the method of claim 6 that is practiced by the apparatus of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein. A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions is further taught by De Haan (¶ 0147).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Haan further in view of Janakiraman et al. (US 2021/0287273 A1) (hereinafter “Janakiraman”).
While De Haan teaches the graph information calculation apparatus of Claim 2 and a vector being output based off multiplication of the elements of the first and second sets (De Haan: (¶ 0048 each vertex has its feature vector; ¶ 0090 once edge neighborhoods i.e., second sets and node neighborhoods i.e., first sets have been determined and classified, they are used to determine a kernel constraint, which is further used for convolutional kernel operation i.e., multiplication between elements as evidenced by ¶ 0080 and Equation (6)), De Haan does not explicitly teach multiplying an inverse number of the number of elements of the second set by a vector provided in a vertex being an element of the first set.
However, Janakiraman teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to obtain the plurality of vectors by performing computation of multiplying an inverse number of a number of elements of plurality of second sets by a vector provided in a vertex being an element of one of the plurality of first sets (Janakiraman: ¶ 0014 multiplying elements of the two sets inversely with each other).
It would be obvious to combine the inverse multiplication as taught by Janakiraman with the apparatus of claim 2 as all teachings are directed towards arithmetic operations using different sets of data. The improvement of Janakiraman lies in de-biasing the results (Janakiraman: ¶ 0014).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA DE JESUS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/M.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151