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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claim amendment filed on 05/12/2026.
Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Argument
In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s Argument on pages 1-5:
Applicant submits that above emphasized claimed technical features address the technical problem associated with inability of current digital twin systems to incorporate probabilistic reasoning and handle uncertainty. An ontology may allow domain-specific data to be represented in knowledge graphs, but knowledge graphs typically represent data in an absolute way and do not support reasoning under uncertain conditions. Additionally, although knowledge graphs provide semantic expressiveness in modelling domain-specific data, the insights provided by a knowledge graph are insufficient to provide probabilistic reasoning capabilities. Thus, relationships may be derived from data of past events, but uncertain future events are not capable of being probabilistically modelled, limiting the usefulness of a corresponding digital twin in predicting future data related to its real world counterpart. Thus, while digital twins have shown promise as a tool for evaluating real world designs, the drawbacks have limited the benefits that may be realized by using digital twins… According to the reminder guidelines of USPTO, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended features such as obtaining a dataset wherein the dataset comprises an ontology and domain data, generating, a multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph, wherein the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph represents a digital twin of a real world counterpart, constructing a first layer, automatically constructing a second layer, treating each node of the domain ontology knowledge graph as a random variable, converting edges of the domain ontology knowledge graph, automatically inferring distribution types and likelihoods of each of the random variables, running a query, generating a control signal, transmitting the control signal and causing the robot to perform one or more operations cannot be performed in human mind, rather the above claimed steps provides a generalized platform that includes a suite of tools that facilitate rapid creation of digital twins for specific use cases and that may be readily reused or modified for additional use cases, thereby providing more flexibility for modelling real-world counterparts using digital twins and decoupling the digital twin platform and tools from the use cases to which the platform and tools could be applied. Also, since the various models are tightly integrated with the data, the data may be expressed both deterministically and probabilistically, which speeds up computation while also reducing the computational resources required to run the analytics. (See paragraph [0075] of the specification) Accordingly, the Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is not directed to the alleged abstract idea and is instead directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument regarding the claim amendment filed on 05/12/2026 since the claim amendment recites the abstract idea and additional claim limitations do not recite improvement of the machine learning model nor improvement of the technology in the field, therefore, as the whole claim is not integrated into the practical application.
The amened claim limitation is recited:
treating each node of the domain ontology knowledge graph as a random variable representing a probability distribution, this is mathematical concept.
converting edges of the domain ontology knowledge graph that represent semantic relationships into edges of the probabilistic ontology graph model that represent statistical dependencies, this is mathematical concept.
Furthermore, the additional claim limitations are not integrated into the practical application as an analysis under the step 2A prong 2 and 2B:
“excluding an edge between a first node and a second node of the domain ontology knowledge graph from the probabilistic ontology graph model in response to determining that the random variable corresponding to the second node is not statistically dependent on the random variable corresponding to the first node, and automatically inferring distribution types and likelihoods of each of the random variables from the domain ontology knowledge graph to construct the second layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the first layer”, “generating, by the one or more processors, a control signal based on the query result;” , “causing, using the control signal by the one or more processors, a robot associated with the real world counterpart to perform one or more operations based on the query result.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“transmitting, by the one or more processors, the control signal to the real world counterpart of the digital twin” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained.
In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s Argument:
The applicant’s argument regarding the 103-rejection based on the claim amendment filed on 05/12/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
The 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendment filed on 05/12/2026.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (claims 1-10, 21), system (claims 11-16, 22) and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claims 17-20). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and mathematical concept.
The claim 1 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ generating, by the one or more processors, a multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the ontology and the domain data” this is a mental process, the human mind can use pen and paper to draw the graph based on the order and the domain of the data, (observation),
-“ wherein generating the multi- layer probabilistic knowledge graph includes: constructing a first layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the ontology and the domain data, the first layer comprising a domain ontology knowledge graph that incorporates at least a portion of the domain data;” this is a mental process, as the human mind can bulid the first layer of the graph based on the tree structure of the information and the context/domain, 9observation/Evaluation).
treating each node of the domain ontology knowledge graph as a random variable representing a probability distribution, this is mathematical concept.
converting edges of the domain ontology knowledge graph that represent semantic relationships into edges of the probabilistic ontology graph model that represent statistical dependencies, this is mathematical concept.
-“ and running,.., a query against the first layer and the second layer to obtain a query result, the query result including one or more portions of the domain data, one or more of the probability distributions, or a combination thereof.” This is a mental process, the human mind can running the query aginast the first layer and second layer and third layer to obtain the query result for example, the human can apply the request through the multiple layers graph, the request to track the person’s activities ( go to shopping, then restaurant and grocery and go home before to visit friend’s house or after visit friend’s house.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The additional limitations recite:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a dataset, wherein the dataset comprises an ontology and domain data corresponding to a domain associated with the ontology; These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph represents a digital twin of a real world counterpart, This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“excluding an edge between a first node and a second node of the domain ontology knowledge graph from the probabilistic ontology graph model in response to determining that the random variable corresponding to the second node is not statistically dependent on the random variable corresponding to the first node, and automatically inferring distribution types and likelihoods of each of the random variables from the domain ontology knowledge graph to construct the second layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the first layer”, “generating, by the one or more processors, a control signal based on the query result;” , “causing, using the control signal by the one or more processors, a robot associated with the real world counterpart to perform one or more operations based on the query result.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“causing, using the control signal by the one or more processors, a robot associated with the real world counterpart to perform one or more operations based on the query result.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(3))
by the one or more processors,, and automatically constructing a second layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the first layer, the second layer comprising a probabilistic ontology graph model that comprises probability distributions for one or more variables; The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“transmitting, by the one or more processors, the control signal to the real world counterpart of the digital twin” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data output. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a dataset, wherein the dataset comprises an ontology and domain data corresponding to a domain associated with the ontology; These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
wherein the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph represents a digital twin of a real world counterpart, This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
“excluding an edge between a first node and a second node of the domain ontology knowledge graph from the probabilistic ontology graph model in response to determining that the random variable corresponding to the second node is not statistically dependent on the random variable corresponding to the first node, and automatically inferring distribution types and likelihoods of each of the random variables from the domain ontology knowledge graph to construct the second layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the first layer”, “generating, by the one or more processors, a control signal based on the query result;” ,The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“causing, using the control signal by the one or more processors, a robot associated with the real world counterpart to perform one or more operations based on the query result.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(3))
by the one or more processors, and automatically constructing a second layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the first layer, the second layer comprising a probabilistic ontology graph model that comprises probability distributions for one or more variables; The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“transmitting, by the one or more processors, the control signal to the real world counterpart of the digital twin” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data output. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
the claim 2 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ constructing a third layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the probability distributions, the third layer comprising a decision optimization model that represents decisions made based on an optimization of a set of variables from the probabilistic ontology graph model.” this is a mental process, the human mind can build the third layer of the graph to make a prediction based on the optimization set of the variables , (observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 3 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
- the query is run against the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer to obtain the query result; and the query result further includes at least one of the decisions made based on the optimization of the set of variables. This is a mental process, the human mid can use generate a particular request or the query on the layers of the multiple layer graph, for example, the query maybe how to keep track the person’s activities all day in the week to make a decision whether that person will willing to buy the luxury car and activity of each day in the week is display on each layer of the multiple layer graph, (observation/evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 4 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the decision optimization model includes one or more decision nodes that represent the decisions made based on the probability distributions, each decision node corresponding to: a user-provided target that represents an ideal state of a system represented by the multi- layer probabilistic knowledge graph; a set of dependent variables and independent variables over which to predict a decision;” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
- and an outcome comprising an entity in the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph or a numeric value. These/this additional limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the decision optimization model includes one or more decision nodes that represent the decisions made based on the probability distributions, each decision node corresponding to: a user-provided target that represents an ideal state of a system represented by the multi- layer probabilistic knowledge graph; a set of dependent variables and independent variables over which to predict a decision;” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
- and an outcome comprising an entity in the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph or a numeric value. These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim 5 recites.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model comprises a plurality of nodes and edges connecting at least some of the plurality of nodes to one or more other nodes.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model comprises a plurality of nodes and edges connecting at least some of the plurality of nodes to one or more other nodes.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 6 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ the probability distributions correspond to random variables; each of the random variables corresponds a node of the plurality of nodes; and directed edges between nodes represent conditional dependencies between random variables corresponding to the nodes.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ the probability distributions correspond to random variables; each of the random variables corresponds a node of the plurality of nodes; and directed edges between nodes represent conditional dependencies between random variables corresponding to the nodes.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 7 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the random variables are mapped to domain ontology classes of the domain ontology knowledge graph and relationships between classes of the domain ontology knowledge graph are mapped to dependencies between the random variables.” This is a mental process, the human can map the random variable to domain ontology classes (particular class) and the relationship between the classes, for example, the multiple layer graph displays the person’s activity and the human mind can map a variable of buying a bottle of juice to the grocery class and the grocery class is related to the shopping class, (observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 8 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein each of the edges corresponds to a likelihood function and a probability distribution indicating a conditional probability of a target concept given a source concept.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein each of the edges corresponds to a likelihood function and a probability distribution indicating a conditional probability of a target concept given a source concept.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 9 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ determining, likelihood functions and the probability distributions based on sampling the domain data.” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the likelihood functions and the probability distribution based on the sampling domain data, (observation/evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
- “automatically…by the one or more processors” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
“automatically…by the one or more processors” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 10 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“wherein the domain ontology knowledge graph represents semantic relationships and the probabilistic ontology graph model represents statistical dependencies.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
--“wherein the domain ontology knowledge graph represents semantic relationships and the probabilistic ontology graph model represents statistical dependencies.” This/these additional limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
The claim 12 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ provide an application programming interface (API) that provides query building functionality; receive user input indicating one or more query parameters; and generate the query based on the user input.” These/this additional limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ provide an application programming interface (API) that provides query building functionality; receive user input indicating one or more query parameters; and generate the query based on the user input.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim 13 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ display a graphical user interface that includes the query result.” These/this additional limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data displaying. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data displaying to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ display a graphical user interface that includes the query result.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data displaying. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data displaying to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim 14 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a control signal based on the query result; and transmit the control signal to the real world counterpart.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a control signal based on the query result; and transmit the control signal to the real world counterpart.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 15 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
“wherein the real world counterpart is a machine, a workflow, a process, an entity or enterprise, or a combination thereof.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
“wherein the real world counterpart is a machine, a workflow, a process, an entity or enterprise, or a combination thereof.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations.
The claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
The claim 18 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model is automatically generated without user input defining random variables represented by the probabilistic ontology graph model or distributions between the random variables.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model is automatically generated without user input defining random variables represented by the probabilistic ontology graph model or distributions between the random variables.” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 12 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model represents random variables and distributions between at least some of the random variables, the random variables corresponding to the probability distributions,” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
-Receiving user input that indicates additional random variables, additional dependencies between random variables, or both; and adding the additional random variables, the additional dependencies, or both, to the probabilistic ontology graph model. These/this additional limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
- wherein the probabilistic ontology graph model represents random variables and distributions between at least some of the random variables, the random variables corresponding to the probability distributions” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
- “receiving user input that indicates additional random variables, additional dependencies between random variables, or both; and adding the additional random variables, the additional dependencies, or both, to the probabilistic ontology graph model.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim 20 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the query indicates a variable to be optimized, and wherein generating the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph further includes:constructing a third layer of the multi-layer probabilistic knowledge graph based on the probability distributions and the query, the third layer comprising a decision optimization model that represents decisions made based on an optimization of a set of variables from the probabilistic ontology graph model,” this is a mental process, the human mind can build the third layer of the graph to make a prediction based on the optimization set of the variables , (observation/Evaluation).
-“ wherein the query is run against the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer to obtain the query result.” This is a mental process, the human mind can running the query aginast the first layer and second layer and third layer to obtain the query result for example, the human can apply the request through the multiple layers graph, the request to track the person’s activities ( go to shopping, then restaurant and grocery and go home before to visit friend’s house or after visit friend’s house.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 21 recites:
a) Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
Embedding the probability distributions after obtaining the unknown parameters within the probabilistic ontology graph model is a mathematical concept.
generating a generative program comprising a series of deterministic and probabilistic statements to estimate unknown parameters of the probability distributions this is mental process, the human can estimate the unknown parameter of probability distribution, (observation/Evaluation).
produce simulation data, and comparing the simulation data with real world data, until the simulation data matches the real-world data, this is a mental process, the human can simulate data and compare the simulated data with the real-world data until some particular condition, (observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: prong 2 analysis:
-“iteratively estimating the unknown parameters by configuring the generative program with estimated parameters, running a simulation process using the generative program to” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: analysis:
-“iteratively estimating the unknown parameters by configuring the generative program with estimated parameters, running a simulation process using the generative program” The additional element is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 21, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 EM N TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-5747. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00-5:00.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached on (571) 272-2589. 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.
/E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights