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 Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 17/928,550 filed on November 29, 2021. Claims 1 to 12 are currently pending with the application.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/06/2025.
Claims 2, 7 and 10 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent claims, and are amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are pending in this application and are presented for examination on merits.
This Action has been made FINAL.
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, 3-6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 5 and 6 similarly recite at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to: enumerate, for a plurality of candidate hypotheses generated from a query formula and background knowledge, constraints to be satisfied by the candidate hypotheses; search for and delete redundant constraints that do not affect an inference result from the enumerated constraints, and exclude the redundant constraints from computation; and generate a combinatorial optimization problem from the plurality of candidate hypotheses and a set of the enumerated constraint that remain after the deletion of the redundant constraints, wherein the plurality of candidate hypotheses are represented in a form of a latent hypothesis graph represented as a directed graph with literals as nodes, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: search for the redundant constraints based on a graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph; and determine, based on the graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph, whether a combination of nodes corresponding to another constraint always holds when a combination of nodes corresponding to one constraint holds, after enumerating which combinations of nodes on the latent hypothesis graph satisfy each constraint.
The limitations of enumerate, for a plurality of candidate hypotheses generated from a query formula and background knowledge, constraints to be satisfied by the candidate hypotheses; search for and delete redundant constraints that do not affect an inference result from the enumerated constraints, and exclude the redundant constraints from computation; and generate a combinatorial optimization problem from the plurality of candidate hypotheses and a set of the enumerated constraint that remain after the deletion of the redundant constraints, wherein the plurality of candidate hypotheses are represented in a form of a latent hypothesis graph represented as a directed graph with literals as nodes, and search for the redundant constraints based on a graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph; and determine, based on the graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph, whether a combination of nodes corresponding to another constraint always holds when a combination of nodes corresponding to one constraint holds, after enumerating which combinations of nodes on the latent hypothesis graph satisfy each constraint, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “enumerate, for a plurality of candidate hypotheses generated from a query formula and background knowledge, constraints to be satisfied by the candidate hypotheses; search for and delete redundant constraints that do not affect an inference result from the enumerated constraints, and exclude the redundant constraints from computation; and generate a combinatorial optimization problem from the plurality of candidate hypotheses and a set of the enumerated constraint that remain after the deletion of the redundant constraints” in the context of this claim encompass the user can mentally perform enumerating candidate hypotheses from query formulas and generating combinatorial optimization problems from the candidates. 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, claims 1, 5 and 6 recite multiple abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – “at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to “ “processing apparatus” or “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “Search for the redundant constraints based on a graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph; and determine, based on the graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph, whether a combination of nodes corresponding to another constraint always holds when a combination of nodes corresponding to one constraint holds, after enumerating which combinations of nodes on the latent hypothesis graph satisfy each constraint” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering/removal step. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “arch for the redundant constraints based on a graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph; and determine, based on the graph structure of the latent hypothesis graph, whether a combination of nodes corresponding to another constraint always holds when a combination of nodes corresponding to one constraint holds, after enumerating which combinations of nodes on the latent hypothesis graph satisfy each constraint” represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and 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). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 5 and 6 20 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4, and 8, 9, 11 and 12 depend on claims 1, 5 and 6 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
With respect to claims 3, 8 and 11, the limitations are directed to “he information processing apparatus according to wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:generate a candidate hypothesis set which is a set of candidate hypotheses, from the query formula and the backgroundknowledge; andenumerate constraints for the respective candidate hypotheses included in the candidate hypothesis”. The additional elements query optimizer further elaborates the abstract idea and merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 3, 8 and 11 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.”. The additional elements query optimizer further elaborates the abstract idea and merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 3, 8 and 11 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 4, 9 and 12, the limitations are directed to “The information processing apparatus according to wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to search for a best hypothesis using an external solver, based on the combinatorial optimization problem”. The additional elements query optimizer further elaborates the abstract idea and merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 4, 9 and 12 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.”. The additional elements query optimizer further elaborates the abstract idea and merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 4, 9 and 12 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 103 rejections raised have been considered but are moot in view of the withdrawal of the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 101 rejections raised have been considered but are moot in view of the rejections necessitated by the newly amended claims.
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
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 SHERIEF BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)272-9782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cordelia Zecher can be reached on 571-272-7771. 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.
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights