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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Amended claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The process of amended Claim 1 culminates in step (c) in the storage of a result of the reasoning in the structured, machine-readable representation. The final, physical step (c) is inextricably linked to the preceding data processing step (b). The data processing is not the end goal; it is a tool that enables a result of the reasoning to be stored in the structured, machine-readable representation. Amended Claim 1 provides an improvement to computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a), I. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY). The improvement in computer functionality is provided because in amended Claim 1 there is provided a computer implemented method for the automated analysis or use of data (Amendment, pages 11 – 18).
The examiner disagrees, and points out that the added limitation of “store or accessing in a non-transitory storage medium a structured, machine-readable representation of data that conforms to a machine-readable language processable defined by a syntax, store a result of the reasoning in the structured, machine-readable representation.”, represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
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 –11, 13- 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1, 3 –11, 13- 31 are directed to a method/system. They hereby fall under at least one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does not fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claims 1, 3 –11, 13- 31 recite steps of observation, evaluation, and judgement that can be practically performed by a human, either mentally or with the use of pen and paper.
The limitation of “machine-readable representation of data that conforms to the machine-readable language comprise semantic nodes and passages; and in which a semantic node represents an entity and is itself represented by an identifier, and a passage is either (i) a semantic node or (ii) a combination of semantic nodes; and where machine-readable meaning comes from the choice of semantic nodes and the way they are combined and ordered as passages; the semantic nodes including semantic links between semantic nodes, wherein the semantic links are themselves semantic nodes; in which the structured, machine-readable representation of data includes reasoning passages which represent and express semantics of reasoning steps, and in which the machine- readable language is scalable since there are no restrictions on which users can create a structured, machine-readable representation of data or a related identifier; (b) automatically processing the structured, machine-readable representation, including processing at least some of the reasoning passages to reason, including fetching and executing one or more initial reasoning passages to return other passages with unknowns that need to be processed, and the results of that processing is a tree of connection that is used to give results for the one or more initial reasoning passages, in which the tree of connection is stored and the processing of the other passages with unknowns happens in parallel, allowing data fetching and exploration of reasoning to be parallelized” in claims 1, 3 –11, 13 - 31, 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 system comprising memory structured ”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
The mere nominal recitation of a system comprising memory structured do not take the claims limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements “store or access in a memory a structured, machine-readable representation of data that conforms to a machine-readable language, store a result of the reasoning.”.
The limitation “store or accessing in a non-transitory storage medium a structured, machine-readable representation of data that conforms to a machine-readable language processable defined by a syntax, store a result of the reasoning in the structured, machine-readable representation.”, represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The claimed “a system comprising memory structured” is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform and existing diagnosis for a patient.
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, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1, 3 –11, 13- 31 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 element of using a system comprising memory structured to perform the processing of reasoning passages steps amounts 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.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements (a system comprising memory structured) represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 3 –11, 13- 31 as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658