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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 02/17/2026. The status of the
claims are as follows:
Claims 1–18 are pending in the application.
Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 03/30/2026 in response to the Office action mailed 12/29/2025. Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have been considered with the results set forth below.
Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled and are no longer under consideration. Accordingly, applicant’s references to claims 1–20 are understood as applying to pending claims 1–18, where applicable.
Claims 1–9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 10 and 12–18 are not subject to a prior-art or subject-matter-eligibility rejection.
Claims 10 and 12–18 contain allowable subject matter, subject to correction of the objections and informalities set forth below.
The rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li in view of Kim is withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The amendment to the claims filed on 03/30/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because:
Claims 7 and 13 are identified as “Original”; however, each claim includes an amendment replacing “symbolic framework” with “symbolic network”. Because claims 7 and 12 have been amended relative to the immediately preceding version of the claims, each claim should be identified as “Currently Amended”.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because the claimed neural-network, cognitive-architecture, symbolic-network, knowledge-graph, embedding, and recommendation operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues that the limitation directed to embedding contextual information within the neural network does not expressly recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation and therefore should not be characterized as a mathematical concept merely because the implementation may involve mathematical operations.
Applicant also argues that the claims must be evaluated as an ordered combination rather than by considering the recited components and operations individually. In particular, Applicant argues that the claims require a specific neuro-symbolic information flow in which:
multimodal input is received at a neural network;
patterns identified by the neural network are output to a cognitive architecture;
the cognitive architecture communicates with a symbolic network containing a knowledge graph database;
the symbolic network identifies contextual information concerning the patterns;
the contextual information is communicated to the neural network;
the contextual information is embedded within the neural network; and
the resulting embedded neural network outputs a recommendation.
Applicant contends that this ordered combination integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and improves the operation of the computing system by supplementing learned neural patterns with symbolic contextual knowledge.
Applicant further argues that the prior Office action did not provide sufficient factual support for its findings that the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant additionally argues that the dependent claims further limit the claims to concrete technological implementations, including particular neural networks, an ACT-R cognitive architecture, memory structures, buffer operations, production rules, audio input, and communication with a large language model.
Applicant relies on the applicable USPTO eligibility guidance, Ex parte Desjardins, Enfish, McRO, and Berkheimer in support of these positions.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Upon reconsideration, the limitation directed to embedding contextual information within the neural network does not expressly recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or identified mathematical calculation. The use of the term “embedding” does not, by itself, establish that the claim recites a mathematical concept.
Further, even assuming that identifying contextual information could be characterized at a high level as an evaluation or judgment, the claims as a whole require coordinated machine operations involving a neural network, a cognitive architecture, a symbolic network, a knowledge graph database, communication among the recited components, embedding contextual information within the neural network, and generating a recommendation through the resulting embedded neural network.
The ordered relationship among these elements is material. The claims do not merely instruct a generic computer to determine context and provide a recommendation. Rather, the claims recite a particular neuro-symbolic processing arrangement in which neural-network patterns are contextualized using structured symbolic knowledge and the resulting contextual information is supplied to the neural network before recommendation generation.
When considered as a whole and in light of the specification, the claimed arrangement integrates any alleged abstract evaluation into a practical technological application.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the well-understood, routine, and conventional findings are also persuasive. The prior Office action did not adequately establish that the claimed ordered combination, operating in the recited manner, was well-understood, routine, and conventional. However, because the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, it is unnecessary to reach Step 2B.
The limitations of the dependent claims have also been considered and do not alter this conclusion.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that Li and Kim do not teach or suggest the amended claims’ specific neuro-symbolic architecture and ordered interaction.
Applicant argues that Li discloses a recommendation pipeline in which a knowledge graph, visual embedding, and textual embedding are supplied to a multimodal graph encoder, which generates feature embeddings used by a recommendation component. Applicant contends that Li does not teach or suggest:
outputting neural-network patterns to a cognitive architecture;
using the cognitive architecture in communication with a separate symbolic network to identify contextual information concerning the patterns;
communicating the contextual information back to the neural network;
embedding the returned contextual information within the neural network; and
using the context-embedded neural network to output a recommendation.
Applicant further argues that Kim does not cure these deficiencies because Kim uses an ACT-R architecture for taxonomic-state prediction and autonomous-driving decisions, rather than for obtaining contextual information from a symbolic knowledge-graph network and returning that information to a neural network for embedding.
Applicant also argues that the prior rejection relied on general similarities among the individual components rather than establishing the particular sequence and functional relationship recited in the claims.
Applicant further argues that the prior Office action did not articulate a sufficient reason to combine Li and Kim in the claimed manner. Applicant contends that incorporating Kim’s ACT-R driving-decision architecture into Li’s recommendation system would require redesigning Li’s architecture rather than making a routine substitution of known elements performing the same function.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Li teaches multimodal processing, knowledge-graph information, feature embeddings, and recommendation generation. However, the cited portions of Li do not teach the claimed ordered information flow in which neural-network patterns are output to a cognitive architecture, contextual information concerning those patterns is identified through a symbolic network in communication with the cognitive architecture, and the contextual information is then communicated back to and embedded within the neural network before recommendation generation.
Kim teaches aspects of an ACT-R cognitive architecture, including declarative memory, buffers, and production-rule processing. However, the cited portions of Kim do not teach a separate symbolic network containing a knowledge graph database that contextualizes neural-network patterns through the cognitive architecture and returns the resulting contextual information to the neural network for embedding.
Thus, although Li and Kim teach certain individual components recited in the claims, the prior rejection did not adequately establish the claimed functional arrangement and ordered communication among those components.
The prior rationale to combine also did not sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Li to route neural-network patterns through Kim’s ACT-R architecture, obtain contextual information through a separate symbolic knowledge-graph network, return the contextual information to the neural network, and embed the returned information within the neural network before generating the recommendation.
Applicant’s reliance on the different end-use environments of Li and Kim is not, by itself, dispositive because references need not address identical applications and obviousness does not require bodily incorporation of one reference into another. Nevertheless, Applicant’s broader argument is persuasive because the prior rejection did not establish a supported reason for making the particular modifications necessary to produce the claimed arrangement.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li in view of Kim is withdrawn.
Request for Allowance
Applicant argues that all formal and substantive requirements for patentability have been satisfied and requests allowance of the application.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claims 1–9 and 11 contain newly added subject matter that is not adequately supported by the application as originally filed. Claims 1–9 and 11 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 10 and 12–18 are not subject to the withdrawn rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 103, or 112(b) and contain allowable subject matter, subject to correction of the outstanding formal objections.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 11-14, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites:
“adaptive control of thought rational framework.”
For clarity and consistency with the terminology used in the specification and other claims, Applicant should amend the phrase to recite, for example:
“an adaptive control of thought-rational (ACT-R) architecture”
Claims 9, 11, and 18 recite:
“adaptive control of thought rational (ACT-R) architecture.”
The word “though” appears to be a typographical error. Applicant should amend “though” to “thought” and appropriately hyphenate the expression, for example:
“adaptive control of thought-rationale (ACT-R) architecture.”
Claim 12 recites:
“a lexical resources (LR), rule bases (RB), or a suitable inference engine.”
The singular article “a” is inconsistent with the plural terms “lexical resources” and “rule bases”. Applicant should revise the limitation to clearly identify the intended alternatives, for example:
“a lexical resource (LR), a rule base (RB), or an inference engine.”
Claims 13 and 14 each recite:
“includes procedural module configured to”
The indefinite article “a” is missing before “procedural module”. Applicant should amend each claim to recite:
“includes a procedural module configured to”
Claim 17 recites:
“symbolic network; and”
The indefinite article “a” is missing before “symbolic network”. Applicant should amend the limitation to recite:
“a symbolic network; and”
Claim 17 further recites:
“one or more processors, wherein the processor is programmed to”
The singular phrase “the processor” is inconsistent with the previously introduced “one or more processors”. Applicant should revise the language to consistently identify the processor arrangement, for example:
“one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to”
Claim 17 further recites:
“in response to the symbolic network communicating the contextual information with the neural network, embedding of the neural network with the contextual information of the knowledge graph dataset to yield an embedded neural network, and outputting a recommendation”
The phrase “programmed to … embedding of” does not use a grammatically parallel operative verb corresponding to the preceding phrase “programmed to”. Applicant should revise the limitation to recite the intended processor operations in parallel form, for example:
“in response to the symbolic network communicating the contextual information with the neural network, embed the neural network with the contextual information of the knowledge graph dataset to yield an embedded neural network, and output a recommendation indicating information associated with at least the input data utilizing the embedded neural network.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, each claim was amended to recite:
“wherein the procedural memory is configured to store data indicating a current procedure associated with the cognitive architecture”
The application as originally filed does not reasonably convey possession of a procedural memory configured to store data indicating a current procedure associated with the cognitive architecture.
Paragraph [0038] discloses:
“The buffers 305 may be the interface between the procedural memory system 313 and the other components (modules) of the ACT-R architecture.”
Paragraph [0038] further discloses:
“Each buffer 305 may hold one chunk at a time, and the actions of a production 309 may affect the contents of the buffers 305.”
Paragraph [0038] further discloses:
“In one embodiment, a buffer may be associated with procedural memory 313 and declarative memory 315 and thus be used for holding the current procedure and one for holding information retrieved from the declarative memory 315.”
Thus, the application as originally filed describes a buffer associated with procedural memory as holding the current procedure. The disclosure distinguishes the buffer from the procedural memory and identifies the buffer, rather than the procedural memory itself, as the component used for holding the current procedure.
Paragraph [0043] describes the procedural module as matching the contents of buffers and coordinating activities using production rules. Paragraph [0043] does not describe the procedural memory itself as storing data indicating the current procedure.
Accordingly, the application as originally filed describes:
a buffer associated with procedural memory that holds the current procedure,
whereas amended claims 1 and 11 require:
the procedural memory itself to be configured to store data indicating the current procedure.
The disclosed association between the buffer and procedural memory does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed arrangement in which the storage function is assigned to the procedural memory itself. No other portion of the application as originally filed has been identified that expressly or inherently describes procedural memory configured to store data indicating a current procedure associated with the cognitive architecture.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the unsupported limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 expressly recites the unsupported procedural-memory limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Paul Coleman whose telephone number is (571)272-4687. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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,
David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/PAUL COLEMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights