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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 4/16/26. Claims 1-20 are pending; (ii) claims 1, 8, and 15, are amended. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a non-final office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to statutory classes of invention, method, computer program product (medium) and system respectively.
However, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation (claim 1 exemplified) cover the performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity…. Which thus recite a fundamental economic practice.
In this case a method of conducting derived knowledge…. Using a generic computer.
The abstract elements include
1. (Currently amended) A method for deriving augmented knowledge from a plurality of heterogeneous data sources, the method comprising: defining, by one or more computer processors, a knowledge base by: extracting entities from a plurality of heterogeneous data sources; augmenting the extracted entities with associated metadata extracted across disparate sources according to relationships and policies of an overall domain ontology; and altering the knowledge base according to the relationships of the augmented entities; receiving a user query; processing the user query according to the knowledge base: reformulating the user query according to the processing; retrieving results from the knowledge base according to the reformulated user query; and providing the results to the user
The technical element includes one or more computer processors.
The application of data by a computer is as claimed essentially an abstract idea.
The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite additional elements of “a computer processor”
The element is recited at a high level of generality more akin to “apply it” using a generic computing component.
The additional elements when considered separately or as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2A prong 2 (the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application)
There are no elements which amount to significantly more to create an inventive concept. However, in view of the breath of the independent claims it is conceivable that the applicant could incorporate various elements from the specification to create a practical application with inventive concept.
The dependent claims for example 3-5 provide more detail in regards to the invention. However, by themselves they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to amount to significantly more. Thus claims 2-7 and 9-14, 16-20 are also rejected by dependency on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of US Patent Publication 202000118014 to Kasturi. In view of US Patent Publication to Minkin 20180165604, and US Patent Publication 20040141354 to Carnahan
As per claim 1 Kasturi discloses;. A method for deriving augmented knowledge from a plurality of heterogeneous (different) data sources, (preamble has minimal patentable weight)
the method comprising:
defining, by one or more computer processors,
a knowledge base by: extracting entities (topics of interest)from a plurality of heterogeneous data
Kasturi(fig. 9 topic of interest from repair orders)
sources; and augmenting the extracted entities; (0034, 0100)
with associated metadata extracted across disparate sources according to relationships and policies of an overall domain ontology; (fig. 5.2)
Kasturi does not explicitly disclose what Minkin teaches;
and altering the knowledge base according to the relationship of the augmented entities Minkin(00251-2, update knowledge base based on relationships, and meta data, 0268, 0269)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kasturi with the learning system of Minkin for the motivation of “assisting in … complex analytical tasks). (0003)
Kasturi and Minkin do not explicitly disclose what Carnahan teaches;
receiving a user query; processing the user query according to the knowledge base: reformulating the user query according to the processing; retrieving results from the knowledge base according to the reformulated user query; and providing the results to the use
Carnahan(0007, substitute a similar query to an unmatched query…. )
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the substitute query teachings of Carnahan with the general query teachings of Kasturi for the motivation of improving “relevance of database and file accessing and/or searching”.
claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1.
As per claim 2 Kasturi discloses; The method according to claim 1, the method comprising: defining, by one or more computer processors, a knowledge base by:
extracting a plurality of problem resolutions; Kasturi(0110 plus more, repair outcomes are loaded in the system)
augmenting the problem resolutions with associated metadata;
Kasturi(0111, metadata, related to intent, again, how is it augmented)
ranking the plurality of problem resolutions augmented with the associated metadata; and storing the problem resolutions augmented with the associated metadata and ranked, together with associated problem resolution explanations;
Kasturi(0115, aggregate and normalize, 0116, cause, resolution…. results)
processing, by the one or more computer processors, an input query by: identifying a source of the input query; extracting at least one entity from query language;
identifying context data associated with the input query; retrieving, by the one or more computer processors, results from the knowledge base for the input query and context;
ranking, by the one or more computer processors, the results; and providing, by the one or more computer processors, the results together with an explanation of the ranking.
Kasturi(0115, results, what explanation through 0116,)
Clams 9 and 16 are similar to claim 2
As per claim 3 Kasturi discloses; The method according to claim 2, further comprising defining, by the one or more computer processors, at least one of a data masking policy, an entity type policy, and a context usage policy. Kasturi(0110, it’s noted that only one of the choices is required, in applicant specification 0040, it appears that these limitations are directed to control of the output to hide extraneous data for example)
Claims 10, 17 are similar to claim 3.
As per claim 4 Kasturi discloses; The method according to claim 2, further comprising ranking, by the one or more computer
processors, the results according to at least one of results order, results context, and user feedback.
Kasturi(0116-7, feedback)
Claim 12 is similar to claim 4
As per claim 5 Kasturi discloses; The method according to claim 2, further comprising expanding, by the one or more computer processors, the input query according to a unique problem identifier of the input query.
Kasturi(0149)
As per claim 14 Kasturi discloses; The computer program product according to claim 8, the stored program instructions further comprising program instructions to alter at least one of entity extraction and the domain Kasturi(0011, an expert may be used to help interpret the data, 0034, subject matter expert provides feedback…. )
Claim 20 is similar to claim 14.
As per claim 7 Kasturi discloses; The method according to claim 1, further comprising altering at least one of the entity extraction and the domain knowledge ontology according to system usage.
Kasturi (0034 , experience ontology)
As per claim 11 Kasturi discloses; The computer program product according to claim 9, wherein identifying context comprises at least one of gathering context, predicting context, and identifying context according to a usage scenario.
Kasturi(context 0100)
Claim 18 is similar to claim 11
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(s) 6,13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Kasturi 20200118014 in view of US Patent Publication 20180165604 to Minkin and US Patent Publication 20040141354 to Carnahan further in view of US Patent Publication to Stumpe 20220261668
As per claim 6, Kasturi and Minkin and Carnahan do not explicitly disclose what Stumpe teaches;
the method according to claim 1, further comprising altering at least one of the entity extraction and the domain knowledge ontology using active learning.
Stumpe(0116 “active learning”) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the machine learning of Kasturi with the active learning of Stumpe for the motivation of creating an interactive loom to improve the quality of the data (0011)
Claims 13 and 19 are similar to claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 4/16/26. Claims 1-20 are pending; (ii) claims 1, 8, and 15, are amended. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a non-final office action.
35 USC § 103 – moot in view of Carnahan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Non persuasive in view of amendment, though moot in view of updated rejection.
In the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (the "2019 Guidance"), dated January 4t, 2019, the Office sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is "directed" to a judicial exception under... Step 2A. Under the 2019 Guidance, "if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea...), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception." (2019 Guidance, page 13). "A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id at 13, 14.
"Prong One" of this analysis asks examiners to: "(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the [2019 Guidance]." Id at 15. The subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Guidance include "Mathematical concepts," "Certain methods of organizing human activity," and "Mental Processes," Id. at 10, 11. "If the claim does not recite a judicial exception..., then the claim is eligible...." Id. at 15.
"Prong Two" of this analysis asks examiners to "evaluate integration... by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit..." Id. at 19. "[Some] exemplary considerations [that] are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application [include]: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;... an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Id. at 19, 20. "When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception." Id. at 18.
B. Argument
Under the USPTO's 2019 Guidance, for a claim to be directed to an abstract idea, it must recite the abstract idea (Prong One), and the abstract idea must not be integrated into a practical application (Prong Two). Applicant respectfully submits, for reasons which will now be discussed, using claim 1 as an example, that the present claims do not satisfy the requirements of Prong One or Prong Two, and that therefore the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1, as amended, recites:
1. A method for deriving augmented knowledge from a plurality of heterogeneous data sources, the method comprising:
defining, by one or more computer processors, a knowledge base by:
extracting entities from a plurality of heterogeneous data sources; augmenting the extracted entities with associated metadata extracted across disparate sources according to relationships and policies of an overall
domain ontology; and
altering the knowledge base according to the relationships of the augmented entities;
receiving a user query;
processing the user query according to the knowledge base: reformulating the user query according to the processing; retrieving results from the knowledge base according to the reformulated user query;
altering the knowledge base according to the reformulated user query and the results;
and
providing the results to the user.
As provided in paragraphs [0019] - [0022] and [0029] the claimed invention provides a practical application and improvement in computer operations by recursively improving an original query using a knowledge base, executing the improved version of the query, altering the
knowledge base according to the improved query and associated query results, and providing the results of to the user. Therefore the knowledge base for each subsequent query is an improved version of the knowledge base utilized for the previous query. This improvement is embodied in the claim limitations wherein the query is reformulated according to the knowledge base, the knowledge base is in turn altered according to the reformulated query and associated search results, yielding an improved version of the original knowledge base for use with the next query.
As such, for at least the reasons discussed above, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea. Dependent claim 2-7 and analogous claims 8-14, and 15-20 are similarly directed toward a practical application and improvement in computer functionality. Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of these claims be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Here the “practical application” element may be in the interpretation of the applicant. However, in regards to the technical improvements such as application and improvement in computer operations by recursively improving an original query using a knowledge base, this element might not be fully claimed in the context of “recursively”. Likewise, although the argued application is to improve the knowledge base, the alternative interpretation in view of the claims is to improve the query based on the “processing”. However, given the original claim 1 does not provide an actual methodology to improve the query, it could be merely correcting a typo for example. Claim, 3 may help with this “practical application” element by providing more detail in this regards.
Claim Rejections - Obviousness - 35 USC 103- moot
Conclusion
The following art was identified by IP.com
Building and Querying an Enterprise Knowledge Graph, IEEE 2019
The Use of Ontology in Retrieval: A Study on Textual, Multilingual, and Multimedia Retrieval, IEEE 2019
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights