DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to claims filed 09 October 2025 for application 17965995 filed 14 October 2022. Currently claims 1-4 are pending.
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 .
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In step 1, claims 1, 3 and 4 are directed to the statutory categories of a system, a method and a system.
In step 2a prong 1, claims 1, 3 and 4 recite, in part, acquiring input information, executing an inference based on a knowledge graph, outputting inference results, acquire a user intention including a word, judging whether the inference result is appropriate, when inappropriate determining a node with the word, adding a word to associate the start node and the node of the word, when an association already exists: determining a minimum value among page rank amounts, maintaining a sum total of the page rank values as constant, limiting the page rank amount to nodes to not exceed the minimum, and supplying a page rank amount to the inference start node. The limitations of acquiring, executing, outputting, judging, determining, adding, determining, maintaining and limiting are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “circuitry”, “memory”, and “processor” in the context of the claims, the limitations encompass constructing a knowledge graph and adding nodes to it in response to judgments in the mind or with aid. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
In step 2a prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “circuitry”, “memory”, and “processor”. The computer components in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
In step 2b, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “circuitry”, “memory”, and “processor” to perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp7-8, filed 09 October 2025, with respect to claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 USC §102 and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 USC §102 and §103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that maintaining a sum total of the page rank values as constant to avoid convergence to zero is a practical application. However, this improvement is not to a specific technology or computer and is instead an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The processing of the knowledge graph requires only generic computer components and could be performed by a human. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 ERIC NILSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5246. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-3.
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.
/ERIC NILSSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151