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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims, Applicant argues that the claims as amended do not include at least the mental processes category of abstract ideas and as such, the claims do not fall under the abstract idea exception (Arguments, pg. 12 – pg. 14, sixth para.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the invention as represented by amended independent claims 1, 26 and 27 recite steps of storing or accessing a structured machine-readable representation of data including passages/statements (i.e., a data gathering and storage/retrieval step), automatically processing the structured representation including reasoning statements (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation/judgement step), storing the result of the reasoning/processing (i.e., a data storage step) and outputting the result of the reasoning/processing to a user (i.e., a post solutional activity of providing output) corresponding to steps achievable by a human using a pen and paper to provide a structured representation of textual data, analyzing the text of the representation and storing the text on paper, and as a result, the steps correspond to the mental processes category of abstract ideas without significantly more. Storing structured representations of data (i.e., text or speech, see instant Abstract) conforming to a machine-readable language, where the representations include passages/statements, corresponds to merely gathering and storing data in the form of text or speech i.e., a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in a claimed process, processing and the structured representation and storing the result of the processing further corresponds to analyzing and storing data, and outputting the results of the reasoning to a user corresponds to a post solutional activity of providing output, where the steps achievable by a human using a pen and paper to analyze text, while storing and displaying/outputting the results of the analysis, and as a result, the mental processes category of abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that if the claims are asserted to recite a mental process, the claims recite a practical application as a result of the recited language of the claims and because the invention results in speed improvements when processing data that is output to a human user while making highly scalable, rapid and accurate question answering possible, while further simplifying storage (Argument, pg. 14, sixth para. – pg. 20, fifth para.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as utilizing the claimed computer elements (computer-implemented, memory, machine, automatically, computer-based system) in performing abstract question answering steps that are otherwise achievable manually does not provide an improvement to technology nor a practical application as such utilization corresponds to merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. Furthermore, the alleged improvements to the technology are not claimed, where simplifying storage to enable quick/speedy search and processing and making highly-scalable, rapid, accurate, semantically based question answering possible as provided in the specification are a result of the conventional use of the claimed generic computer elements and not an improvement to the computer elements (see Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”’), and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because limitations “(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached and (c) storing a result of the reasoning” corresponds to the well-understood, routine, conventional generic computer functions of analyzing and storing information from/to memory as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05 and as also provided by at least cited references Meyer and Tunstall-Pedoe (US 2014/0351281 A1).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims with references Meyer and Tunstall-Pedoe, Applicant argues that there is no disclosure of “automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements …” in references Meyer and Tunstall-Pedoe (Arguments, pg. 20 – pg. 22, second para.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Tunstall-Pedoe discloses its automated query answering system as utilizing its stored knowledge of facts and corresponding explanations (i.e., reasoning statements) in determining inference steps i.e., (reason steps) and inferred facts used in providing answers to a user query as well as explanations for the steps and facts used in generating the answer (para. [0025]; para. [0102]; para. [0316]), corresponding to the argued limitation “automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements …”
Applicant further argues that neither Meyer nor Tunstall-Pedoe discloses limitation “(i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent factual statements, query statements and reasoning statement” (Arguments, pg. 22, third para. – pg. 24, first para.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Meyer discloses its knowledge representation as including nodes representing query terms as well as type nodes (fig. 1B; para. [0094]), respectively corresponding to the claimed query statements and factual, and as a result, limitation “(i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent factual statements and query statements”. Tunstall-Pedoe further discloses its knowledge representation as including a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations (i.e. reasoning) that is part of the knowledge (para. [0025]; para. [0102]), corresponding to limitation “(i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent factual statements and reasoning statements”.
Applicant also argues that neither Meyer nor Tunstall-Pedoe discloses limitation “(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language” as para. [0025] of Tunstall-Pedoe describes explanations as including human-readable explanatory text, but that there is no actual reasoning being performed in Tunstall-Pedoe to reason, as Tunstall-Pedoe only explains how a conclusion is reached, and as such, argues that Tunstall-Pedoe fails to disclose limitations “(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached” and “(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language” (Arguments, pg. 24, second para. – pg.27, fourth para.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Tunstall-Pedoe discloses its system processing a user query using its structured knowledge facts to produce an answer to the user query (para. [0102]), where the process involves answering the query using inference steps (i.e. to reason/reasoning) and inferred facts/explanations (para. [0316]), corresponding to limitation “(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached”. Furthermore, Tunstall-Pedoe discloses its knowledge as including a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts (para. [0025]) and wherein the knowledge is represented using a machine-readable language of pre-determined syntax (para. [0124]), as well as storing each fact with its corresponding explanation in a cache (para. [0308]-[0309]), corresponding to limitation “(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Patent
(US 12,499,320)
Instant Application
(18/088,576)
1. A computer implemented method for the automated analysis or use of data, comprising the steps of:
(a) storing in a non-transitory storage medium a structured, machine- readable representation of data that conforms to a machine-readable processable language, in which the structured, machine-readable representation of data that conforms to the machine- readable processable language comprises semantic nodes and passages; and in which each semantic node represents an entity and is itself represented by an identifier; and each passage is either (i) a semantic node or (ii) a combination of semantic nodes; and where machine-readable meaning comes from choice of semantic nodes and a way they are combined and ordered as passages; in which the structured, machine-readable representation of data includes factual statements, query statements, reasoning statements and reasoning passages; in which the machine-readable representation of data uses a shared syntax that applies to semantic nodes and passages that represent the factual statements, the query statements, the reasoning statements and the reasoning passages, wherein the syntax is an unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured, machine-readable representations of data to a depth;
in which the structured, machine-readable representation of data includes reasoning passages, wherein the reasoning passages are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps;
(b) automatically processing the structured, machine-readable representation of data, including processing at least some of the reasoning passages represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps to reason and to generate an explanation of the reasoning in the processing language, and
(c) storing a final answer of the reasoning and the explanation of the reasoning in the processing language.
13. (Original) The method of Claim 2 in which the syntax for the machine-readable processable language applies to combinations of semantic nodes that represent factual statements, query statements and reasoning statements.
1. A computer implemented method for the automated analysis or use of data, comprising the steps of:
(a) storing or accessing in a non-transitory medium structured, machine-readable representations of data that conform to a machine-readable processable language, the structured, machine-readable representations of data including passages that represent factual statements, query statements and reasoning statements wherein the reasoning passages are presented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached” in which one or more of the following apply:
ii) the syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a substantially unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured representations of data;
(iii) the structured machine-readable representations of data include respective identifiers selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable users to selection of a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier;
(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached, and
(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language.
outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached
(i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent factual statements, query statements and reasoning statements;
Instant Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24, 27 and 28 of patent US 12,499,320. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1 (shown in table above), 26 (obvious variant) and 27 (obvious variant) correspond to the Copending independent claims 1 (shown in table above) and 28, where reference Meyer (2010/0121839 A1) discloses limitation “iii) the structured machine-readable representations of data include respective identifiers selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable users to selection of a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier” (para. [0017]; para. [0053]; para. [0064]; para. [0088]) and reference Tunstall-Pedoe discloses limitation “wherein the reasoning passages are presented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached” (para. [0012]; para. [0025]; para. [0102]), “(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached” (para. [0025]; para. [0102]; para. [0301]), and “outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached” (para. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the features of Meyer and Tunstall-Pedoe for all the reasons described by the references including providing a cost-based optimization of query resolution (Meyer, para. [0071]-[0073]; para. [0098]-[0099]) and demonstrating where an answer "magically" produced came from, thus greatly improving the confidence a user has in the result/answer (Tunstall-Pedoe, para. [0301]). The instant dependent claims 2-25 also align with the copending claims 3-24 and 27.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of data analysis without significantly more. The claims 1, 26 and 27 recite steps of storing or accessing a structured machine-readable representation of data that conforms to a machine readable language including passages/statements, where the syntax for the machine readable language is a syntax that applies to passages/statements, is an unambiguous syntax representation includes respective identifiers (i.e., a data gathering and storage step), processing the structured representation including reasoning statements to reason and explain how a conclusion is reached (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation/judgement step), storing the result of the reasoning/processing (i.e. a data storage step), and outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning (i.e. a post solutional activity of outputting data), corresponding to steps achievable by a human using a pen and paper to provide a structured representation of textual data, analyzing the text of the representation and storing the text on paper, and as a result, the steps correspond to the mental processes category of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, where the generically recited computer elements (computer-implemented, memory, machine, automatically, computer-based system) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because limitations “(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements to reason”, “(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language” and “outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached” correspond to the well-understood, routine, conventional generic computer functions of “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result and “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05 and as also provided by cited references Meyer (para. [0071]-[0080]; para. [0083]; para. [0100]-[0101]), London (para. [0144]; para. [0164]-[0166]), Karashchuk (para. [0210]; para. [0226]-[0228]), see PTO 892 form (5/10/23) and Tunstall-Pedoe (US 2014/0351281 A1).
The dependent claims 2-25 and 28-30 also recite mental processes and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are as such similarly rejected.
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.
1. Claims 1-13 and 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al US 2010/0121839 A1 (“Meyer”) in view of Tunstall-Pedoe US 2014/0351281 A1 (“Tunstall-Pedoe”)
Per Claim 1, Meyer discloses a computer implemented method for the automated analysis or use of data, comprising the steps of:
(a) storing or accessing in a non-transitory medium structured, machine-readable representations of data that conform to a machine-readable processable language, the structured, machine-readable representations of data including passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]-[0084]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]; para. [0157], single node or combination of nodes as passage(s), type nodes in fig. 1B as facts/factual statements, nodes including query words as query statements);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]);
(ii) the syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a substantially unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured representations of data (para. [0022]; para. [0072]-[0079]);
(iii) the structured machine-readable representations of data include respective identifiers selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable users to selection of a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier (para. [0017]; A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) which consist of a database id and a primitive id…, para. [0053]; para. [0064]; Whenever a primitive is written, the system adds the ID for the primitive to all the sets that are appropriate…, para. [0088]);
(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data (para. [0071]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query…, para. [0072]-[0079]; para. [0083]; para. [0100]-[0101]), and
Meyer does not explicitly disclose (a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statement, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached, in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language or outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached
However, these features are taught by Tunstall-Pedoe:
(a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts.…, para. [0025]; para. [0102]; a machine-readable mathematical language of pre-determined syntax used to represent the knowledge …, para. [0124]);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; para. [0102]);
(b) automatically processing the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; The query answering system has also produced a concise explanation for the answer by presenting the facts in the static knowledge base which were used to answer this query (206). (The needed generated facts are not shown.) One of the facts used to answer the question can be confirmed or contradicted by the user (207) via the user assessment system. A detailed explanation including the generated facts and the steps taken to generate them was also produced …, para. [0102]; para. [0301]; In the preferred embodiment this is just the statically stored facts that were referenced on the way to answering the query using a method similar to that described above but with all the inference steps and inferred facts…, para. [0316]);
(c) storing a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language (para. [0025]; para. [0124]; para. [0308]; A full explanation is stored with every fact placed in the cache. When a successful search of the cache is made and the fact pulled out, a check is made to see whether this fact has been previously used (and therefore justified) in the explanation of the lines of the current query done so far.…, para. [0309]), and
outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached (para. [0102])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Tunstall-Pedoe with the method of Meyer in arriving at the missing features of Meyer, because such combination would have resulted in identifying true or false facts/statements (Tunstall-Pedoe, para. [0194]-[0195]).
Per Claim 2, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the structured, machine-readable representation of data that conforms to the machine-readable processable language comprise semantic nodes and passages (A primitive model is provided in which everything in a database is modeled with the primitives, including links and nodes. …, para. [0051]; para. [0100]); and
in which a semantic node represents an entity and is itself represented by an identifier (para. [0051]; A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs)…, para. [0053]); and
a passage is either (i) a semantic node or (ii) a combination of semantic nodes (para. [0051]; para. [0401]); and
where machine-readable meaning comes from the choice of semantic nodes and the way they are combined and ordered as passages (para. [0051]; para. [0071]-[0078]; para. [0401])
Per Claim 3, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the structured machine-readable representation of data include a single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning of the structured machine-readable representations of data (When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query..., para. [0072]-[0076], parenthesized/bracketed expressions as providing disambiguation).
Per Claim 4, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning is the only syntactical item to disambiguate meaning of different combinations of structured, machine-readable representation of data (para. [0072]-[0076]).
Per Claim 5, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 4
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate the meaning of different combinations of structured, machine-readable representation of data is the primary syntactical item to disambiguate the meaning of the combination (para. [0072]-[0076]).
Per Claim 6, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning including representing nesting of the structured, machine-readable representation of data (When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query..., para. [0072]-[0076]).
Per Claim 7, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning including representing nesting of semantic nodes and passages (para. [0051]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query..., para. [0072]-[0076]; para. [0401]).
Per Claim 8, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning including representing nesting of semantic nodes and passages to any arbitrary depth (A query syntax provides a nested tree of constraints…, para. [0051]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query..., para. [0072]-[0076]; para. [0401]; The basic join algorithm used by graphd is the nested loop join. Working through the syntax tree from the top down, we try candidate primitives one at a time…, para. [1241], working down tree from top as going down to any depth).
Per Claim 9, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning requires that semantic nodes and passages can only be combined in nested combinations (A primitive model is provided in which everything in a database is modeled with the primitives, including links and nodes…, para. [0051]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query..., para. [0072]-[0076]).
Per Claim 10, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning allows for expressions to be nested indefinitely to allow a user to define a concept, coupled with contextual information about the concept, as a hierarchy of semantic nodes (para. [0051]-[0052]; para. [0138]; para. [01241]).
Per Claim 11, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 3
Meyer discloses the method in which the single syntactical item to disambiguate meaning allows for a combination of semantic nodes to contain any finite number of semantic nodes and the semantic nodes within them can also be combination nodes creating any level of nesting (para. [0051]-[0052]; para. [0138]; para. [01241]).
Per Claim 12, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 2
Meyer discloses the method in which a semantic link between nodes, such as ISA, is itself a semantic node (There are links between the nodes that can carry data. The nodes and links are all primitives…, para. [0084]; para. [0163]; para. [0204]-[0206]; para. [0401]; para. [1279]-[1280]).
Per Claim 13, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 2
Meyer discloses the method in which the syntax for the machine-readable processable language applies to combinations of semantic nodes that represent factual statements, query statements (para. [0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]-[0090]; para. [0119]-[0121])
Tunstall-Pedoe discloses Meyer discloses the method in which the syntax for the machine-readable processable language applies to combinations of semantic nodes that represent reasoning statements (para. [0025]; para. [0124])
Per Claim 15, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the machine-readable processable language is a universal language for which substantially anything expressible in natural language is expressible as a structured, machine-readable representation of data or a combination of structured, machine- readable representations of data (para. [0056]; para. [0071]-[0079]).
Per Claim 16, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which a structured, machine-readable representation of data represents a specific entity, such as a word, concept, or other thing, and once generated, identifies uniquely that specific word, concept, or other thing in the universal language (para. [0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0071]-[0069]).
Per Claim 17, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which an ordered or partially ordered collection of structured, machine-readable representations of data captures a specific meaning or semantic content (para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0084]).
Per Claim 18, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which meaning of a structured, machine-readable representation of data comes from statements written in the machine-readable processable language (para. [0052]-[0053]; Graphd primitives (see FIGS. 1 and 2) are identified by Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) which consist of a database id and a primitive id. In a database, primitive ids are assigned sequentially as primitives are written…, para. [0056]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0084]).
Per Claim 19, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which meaning of a structured, machine- readable representation of data comes from other structured, machine-readable representations of data that represents things that have been said about the structured, machine-readable representation of data (fig. 1B; para. [0113]; para. [0203]-[0204]).
Per Claim 20, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which a structured, machine-readable representation of data that represents an entity encodes semantic meaning of that entity through links to structured, machine-readable representations of data of related words, concepts, other terms, or logical processes (fig. 1B; para. [0083]).
Per Claim 21, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which combining structured, machine-readable representations of data generates a new word, concept, or other term with a new meaning or semantic content in the machine-readable processable language (The processor modifies a primitive (140) to change the primitive's value by writing a new primitive carrying a modification and marking said new primitives as a replacement for the primitive that it is replacing..., para. [0055]).
Per Claim 22, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the machine-readable processable language is understandable to human users where it corresponds to an equivalent statement in natural language (para. [0075]-[0076]; All that the graph knows about are nodes that represent identities, and links that represent data about identities (see FIGS. 1A and 1B)…, para. [0083]; Arnold has a name of Arnold, which connects a featureless node that is identified with the person Arnold and with the language that it has been labeled in, e.g. English…, para. [0111], English as understandable to human users).
Per Claim 23, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 2
Meyer discloses the method in which a semantic node is a structured, machine- readable representation of data that, once defined, has an identifier or ID so it can be referred to within the machine-readable processable language, and the identifier is selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable users to select a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier (A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) …, para. [0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0188]; para. [0644]-[0645]).
Per Claim 24, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the machine-readable processable language is scalable since any natural language word, concept, or other thing can be represented by a structured, machine-readable representation of data (para. [0017]; para. [0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]).
Per Claim 25, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer discloses the method in which the machine-readable processable language is scalable since there are no restrictions on which users can create a structured, machine-readable representation of data or related identifier (para. [0017]; para. [0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]).
Per Claim 26, Meyer discloses a computer-based system configured to analyse data, the system being configured to:
(a) store in a non-transitory storage medium or access from a non-transitory storage medium, structured, machine-readable representations of data that conform to a machine-readable processable language, the structured machine-readable representations of data including passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]-[0084]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]; para. [0157], single node or combination of nodes as passage(s), type nodes in fig. 1B as facts/factual statements, nodes including query words as query statements);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to the passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]);
(ii) the syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a substantially unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured representations of data (para. [0022]; para. [0072]-[0079]);
(iii) the structured machine-readable representations of data include respective identifiers selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable selection of a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier (para. [0017]; A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) which consist of a database id and a primitive id…, para. [0053]; para. [0064]; Whenever a primitive is written, the system adds the ID for the primitive to all the sets that are appropriate…, para. [0088]);
(b) automatically process the structured representations of data (para. [0071]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query…, para. [0072]-[0079]; para. [0083]; para. [0100]-[0101]), and
Meyer does not explicitly disclose (a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statement, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached, in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (b) automatically process the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (c) store a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language or outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached
However, these features are taught by Tunstall-Pedoe:
(a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts.…, para. [0025]; para. [0102]; a machine-readable mathematical language of pre-determined syntax used to represent the knowledge …, para. [0124]);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; para. [0102]);
(b) automatically process the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; The query answering system has also produced a concise explanation for the answer by presenting the facts in the static knowledge base which were used to answer this query (206). (The needed generated facts are not shown.) One of the facts used to answer the question can be confirmed or contradicted by the user (207) via the user assessment system. A detailed explanation including the generated facts and the steps taken to generate them was also produced …, para. [0102]; para. [0301]; In the preferred embodiment this is just the statically stored facts that were referenced on the way to answering the query using a method similar to that described above but with all the inference steps and inferred facts…, para. [0316]);
(c) store a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language (para. [0025]; para. [0124]; para. [0308]; A full explanation is stored with every fact placed in the cache. When a successful search of the cache is made and the fact pulled out, a check is made to see whether this fact has been previously used (and therefore justified) in the explanation of the lines of the current query done so far.…, para. [0309]), and
output to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached (para. [0102])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Tunstall-Pedoe with the system of Meyer in arriving at the missing features of Meyer, because such combination would have resulted in identifying true or false facts/statements (Tunstall-Pedoe, para. [0194]-[0195]).
Per Claim 27, Meyer discloses a computer program product embodied on a first non-transitory storage medium, the computer program product executable on a processor to:
(a) access in a second non-transitory storage medium structured, machine-readable representations of data that conform to a machine-readable processable language, the structured machine-readable representations of data including passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]-[0084]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]; para. [0156]-[0157], single node or combination of nodes as passage(s), type nodes in fig. 1B as facts/factual statements, nodes including query words as query statements);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to the passages that represent factual statements, query statements (fig. 1B; para. [0014]; the graph store described herein, and which is referred to as graphd…, para. [0052]-[0053]; para. [0071]-[0079]; para. [0083]; A typical query is for a specific node. Initially, nothing is known about it. There is a link, which refers to the node with its left, and its type, which is its GUID, i.e. a number that corresponds to the node for the type …, para. [0094]; para. [0111]-[0113]; Suppose there is a query for Arnold who is married to Maria…. Para. [0116]; para. [0119]-[0121]);
(ii) the syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a substantially unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured representations of data (para. [0022]; para. [0072]-[0079]);
(iii) the structured machine-readable representations of data include respective identifiers selected from an address space that is sufficiently large to enable selection of a new identifier with negligible risk of selecting a previously allocated identifier (para. [0017]; A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) which consist of a database id and a primitive id…, para. [0053]; para. [0064]; Whenever a primitive is written, the system adds the ID for the primitive to all the sets that are appropriate…, para. [0088]);
(b) automatically process the structured representations of data (para. [0071]; When a query executes (210), each of a plurality of parenthesized nesting levels of templates is evaluated to a list of primitive components that match the query…, para. [0072]-[0079]; para. [0083]; para. [0100]-[0101]), and
Meyer does not explicitly disclose (a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statements; in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (b) automatically process the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached, (c) store a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language or outputting to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached
However, these features are taught by Tunstall-Pedoe:
(a) the structured, machine-readable representations of data including reasoning statements, wherein the passages that represent reasoning statements are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps and are usable to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts.…, para. [0025]; para. [0102]; a machine-readable mathematical language of pre-determined syntax used to represent the knowledge …, para. [0124]);
in which all of the following apply: (i) a syntax for the machine-readable processable language is a single shared syntax that applies to passages that represent reasoning statements (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; para. [0102]);
(b) automatically process the structured representations of data, including processing at least some of the passages that represent reasoning statements, to reason and to explain how a conclusion has been reached (The knowledge includes a plurality of facts each of which is represented in the machine-readable format, and a plurality of explanations each of which is identified as corresponding to one or more of the facts…., para. [0025]; The query answering system has also produced a concise explanation for the answer by presenting the facts in the static knowledge base which were used to answer this query (206). (The needed generated facts are not shown.) One of the facts used to answer the question can be confirmed or contradicted by the user (207) via the user assessment system. A detailed explanation including the generated facts and the steps taken to generate them was also produced …, para. [0102]; para. [0301]; In the preferred embodiment this is just the statically stored facts that were referenced on the way to answering the query using a method similar to that described above but with all the inference steps and inferred facts…, para. [0316]);
(c) store a result of the reasoning in the machine-readable processable language (para. [0025]; para. [0124]; para. [0308]; A full explanation is stored with every fact placed in the cache. When a successful search of the cache is made and the fact pulled out, a check is made to see whether this fact has been previously used (and therefore justified) in the explanation of the lines of the current query done so far.…, para. [0309]), and
output to a human user the result of the reasoning including the explanation of how the conclusion was reached (para. [0102])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Tunstall-Pedoe with the product of Meyer in arriving at the missing features of Meyer, because such combination would have resulted in identifying true or false facts/statements (Tunstall-Pedoe, para. [0194]-[0195]).
Per Claim 28, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1 method of Claim 23,
Meyer discloses wherein the identifier is a 128-bit version 4 UUID (RFC 4122) with hyphenated lower-case syntax (A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) …, para. [0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0188]; para. [0644]-[0645]).
Per Claim 29, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1 method of Claim 23,
Meyer discloses wherein the identifier is a string (A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) …, para. [0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0188]; para. [0644]-[0645]).
Per Claim 30, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1e method of Claim 29,
Meyer discloses wherein the string is a Unicode string (A processor is configured to providing a plurality of primitives that are identified by globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) …, para. [0053]; para. [0056]; para. [0188]; para. [0644]-[0645]).
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christianson et al US 6,085,186 (“Christianson”)
Per Claim 14, Meyer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the method of Claim 1
Meyer does not explicitly disclose the method in which the syntax of the structured, machine- readable representation of data conforms or substantially conforms to the production grammar “<passage>::=<id> | <passage>::=(<passage><passage>*)” where “<passage>*” means zero or one or more further passages and where <id> is an identifier for a semantic node
However, this feature is suggested by Christianson (col. 21, ln 32-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Christianson with the method of Meyer in implementing “the method in which the syntax of the structured, machine- readable representation of data conforms or substantially conforms to the production grammar “<passage>::=<id> | <passage>::=(<passage><passage>*)” where “<passage>*” means zero or one or more further passages and where <id> is an identifier for a semantic node“, by modifying the grammar described by Christianson as a matter of design choice, and also because such implementation/modification would have resulted in identifying responses to user strings/queries (Christianson, Abstract; col. 21, ln 2-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
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.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658