301-30The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 6 November 2025. THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-30 are pending.
Claims 16-30 are withdrawn.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-6, 8-15.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-6, 8-15 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent claim) With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “… extract contextually relevant information from the ingested information to check availability of one or more knowledge areas in a trained built-in library for complete knowledge transition, and identify knowledge gaps based on unavailability of the one or more knowledge areas …, wherein the transition planning module is configured to operate on an underlying machine learning model to extract the contextually relevant information and construct the trained built-in library” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “extracting”, “identifying”, “to operate”, “construct”, in the limitation citied above encompasses collect information, analyze it, identify missing knowledge, and extract additional information to construct a library of information, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “ingest information, via an input device associated with a computer system from a plurality of sources, in a given file format from a plurality of sources and supporting artifacts ….” (insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP.2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP2106.05(d)(II))). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output related to the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computing element is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “ingest information, via an input device associated with a computer system from a plurality of sources, in a given file format from a plurality of sources and supporting artifacts ….” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-6, 8-15 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2-6, 8-15 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation “ … to perform knowledge search requested for a knowledge area and generate a corresponding knowledge graph providing detailed analytics therefor” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation “ … to generate synopsis of all extracted information and associated knowledge gaps” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation “ … to render status of knowledge acquisition for a specific knowledge transition along with associated timelines” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation “ … creating a trained data set constituted of a customized corpus of entities by way of annotating a subtext with a corresponding text of an input training data; constructing the machine learning model from the trained data set by utilizing a named entity recognition engine; and using the machine learning model to extract the contextually relevant data and: checking the availability of entities to identify the knowledge gaps based on learnings from the trained data set” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites limitation “ … wherein the named entity recognition engine is configured to: annotate the subtext with the text of the input training; and extract the contextually relevant information from the ingested information along with the machine learning model” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation “ … wherein the ingested information of the given format is converted to a textual information for intelligent and dynamic knowledge extraction therefrom, wherein the textual information is extracted from an image file format using a computer vision recognition technique; and the textual information is extracted from an audio and video file format using speech to text technique” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation “ … to identify source type of the file in given format” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitation “ … wherein the availability of one or more knowledge areas is ascertained across categories selected from a group comprising of process, functional, operational, technical, and infrastructure” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites limitation “ … create a book of knowledge in an event of one or more entities inquired for are unavailable in the knowledge areas …” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. The claim further recites “re-train the machine learning model at predetermined intervals to update the trained built-in library”, which is mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP2106.05(f)). Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitation “ … wherein the book of knowledge is generated based on application domain, one or more standard key terms associated therewith, application group, knowledge area categories and appended to the trained built-in library” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites further limitation “ … employs elastic search technique to perform the knowledge search and provide a detailed content on the requested for knowledge area” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites further limitation “ … to obviate data privacy risks” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites further limitation “ … to respond to contextually relevant specific user queries” which is further step of library construction, which is a mental process and/or math concept. Except citing possible generic computing element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 31 May 2021 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendment / argument overcome the issues, hence the jrections are withdrawn.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.9-13) ….
PNG
media_image1.png
132
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
226
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image3.png
156
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: As stated in 101 rejection section, the invention claimed is directed to a process that can be performed by human, hence an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer to implement the abstract idea, there is not additional element showing integration into practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The 101 rejection is maintained.
2) Applicant argued that (p.13) ….
PNG
media_image4.png
306
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: The knowledge transfer process as claimed can be performed by human. Computer is cited to as tool to implement the abstract idea. There is no additional element identified showing improvement of computer or a practical application. The 101 rejection is maintained.
3) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128