DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response the communications filed on 08/07/2026 in which claims 21, 23, 25-26, 28-30, 32, 34-37 and 40 are amended, and therefore claims 21-40 are pending.
--
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
-
Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 21-29 recite a method. Claims 30-36 recite a non-transitory medium. Claims 37-40 recite a system comprising a processor and memory. Therefore, claims 21-29 are directed to a process, claims 30-36 are directed to a manufacture, and claims 37-40 are directed to a machine.
With respect to claims 21, 30 and 37:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
processing… a source entity embedding and a predicate embedding of the source entity-relation pair information to generate a source intermediate embedding; (mental process – evaluation; one can mentally utilize two embeddings to generate another embedding)
processing… one or more neighborhood entity embeddings and corresponding neighborhood relationship embeddings of the neighborhood entity-relation pair information to generate one or more neighborhood intermediate embeddings; (mental process – evaluation; one can mentally utilize two embeddings to generate another embedding)
aggregating… the source intermediate embedding and the one or more neighborhood intermediate embeddings to generate a target entity embedding; (mental process – evaluation; one can mentally aggregate the source embedding and neighborhood embeddings (the interaction information of pairs))
generating, for each of a plurality of candidate target entities, a respective link prediction based on the target entity embedding and a corresponding candidate entity embedding; (mental process – evaluation or judgement; one can mentally make a link prediction based on the embedding)
selecting one of the plurality of candidate target entities based on the respective link predictions to be a target node for the incomplete triplet; and (mental process – evaluation or judgement; one can mentally select one of the entities based on the link predictions)
adding the target node to the incomplete triplet in the knowledge graph to form a completed triplet. (mental process – evaluation or judgement; one can mentally add the node to the incomplete triplet)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
(claim 30) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for completing an incomplete triplet in a knowledge graph, the instructions when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to (claim 37) A system for completing an incomplete triplet in a knowledge graph, the system comprising: a processor; memory storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed, cause the system to (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (2) invoking generic computer components)
receiving, by a first-level transformer block, a source entity-relation pair information from the knowledge graph; (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
receiving, by the first-level transformer block, neighborhood entity- relation pair information from the knowledge graph, wherein the first-level transformer block comprises a source transformer and one or more neighborhood transformers; (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
… by the source transformer… by the one or more neighborhood transformers (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using a transformer)
… by a second-level transformer block… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using a transformer block)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(claim 30) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for completing an incomplete triplet in a knowledge graph, the instructions when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to (claim 37) A system for completing an incomplete triplet in a knowledge graph, the system comprising: a processor; memory storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed, cause the system to (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (2) invoking generic computer components)
receiving, by a first-level transformer block, a source entity-relation pair information from the knowledge graph; (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
receiving, by the first-level transformer block, neighborhood entity- relation pair information from the knowledge graph, wherein the first-level transformer block comprises a source transformer and one or more neighborhood transformers; (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
… by the source transformer… by the one or more neighborhood transformers (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using a transformer)
… by a second-level transformer block… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using a transformer block)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 22, 31 and 39:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
further comprising: determining neighborhood relational information from the knowledge graph (mental process – evaluation or judgement, one can mentally determine relational information)
converting the neighborhood relational information into the neighborhood entity-relation pair information (mental process – evaluation or judgement, one can mentally convert the relational information)
With respect to claims 23 and 32:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein generating the respective link prediction for each of the plurality of candidate target entities comprises applying a dot-product operation to the target entity embedding and the corresponding candidate entity embedding. (mathematical concept - mathematical calculation, applying dot-product to the target and candidate embeddings)
With respect to claims 24, 33 and 38:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
further comprising: converting the incomplete triplet from the knowledge graph to the source entity-relation pair information, wherein the incomplete triplet is missing one of a subject or an object (mental process – evaluation or judgement, one can mentally convert the triplet)
With respect to claims 25, 34 and 40:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein selecting one of the plurality of candidate target entities to be a target node for the incomplete triplet comprises: (mental process – evaluation or judgement, one can mentally select one of the entities)
ranking the plurality of candidate target entities based on respective plausibility scores associated with the respective link predictions; and (mental process – evaluation, one can mentally rank the entities based on scores)
selecting a highest ranked candidate target entity to be the target node for the incomplete triplet. (mental process – evaluation or judgement, one can mentally select a highest entity)
With respect to claims 26 and 35:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the source entity-relation pair information further comprises a token embedding. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting. Claim 21 recites “receiving… a source entity-relation pair information” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the source entity-relation pair information further comprises a token embedding. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 21 recites “receiving… a source entity-relation pair information” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 27:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the token embedding is a classification token (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting. Claim 26 recites “the source entity-relation pair information further comprises a token embedding” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the token embedding is a classification token (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 26 recites “the source entity-relation pair information further comprises a token embedding” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 28 and 36:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the neighborhood entity-relation pair information further comprises a respective token embedding for each neighborhood entity-relation pair. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting. Claim 21 recites “receiving… neighborhood entity-relation pair information” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the neighborhood entity-relation pair information further comprises a respective token embedding for each neighborhood entity-relation pair. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 21 recites “receiving… neighborhood entity-relation pair information” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 29:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the knowledge graph comprises a plurality of nodes connected by edges, wherein each of the plurality of nodes comprises a respective entity and each of the edges represents a relationship between the respective entities of two of the plurality of nodes. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h))
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the knowledge graph comprises a plurality of nodes connected by edges, wherein each of the plurality of nodes comprises a respective entity and each of the edges represents a relationship between the respective entities of two of the plurality of nodes. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h))
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Argument: (p. 9-10) Step 2A, Prong One: The Claims Do Not Recite a Mental Process… These limitations require a particular hierarchical machine-learning computation in which a source transformer and one or more neighborhood transformers of a first-level transformer block generate respective source and neighborhood intermediate embeddings, a second-level transformer block aggregates those embeddings to generate a target entity embedding… The relevant inquiry is whether the limitations as claimed can practically be performed mentally. Here, the claim requires link predictions to be generated through the recited graph- specific transformer architecture and the specified flow of embedding data between hierarchical processing levels… The "selecting" and "adding" limitations also must be considered as part of the claimed ordered combination…
Response: The "two processing," "selecting" and "adding" steps are evaluated under step 2A, prong One, and are abstract ideas as mental processes as explained in the 101 rejection section. Further, the ordered combination of mental steps is still ordered abstract steps, i.e. the combination of mental steps does not make it patent eligible.
The claim recites “by the source transformer… by the one or more neighborhood transformers…” which is evaluated under step 2A, prong Two and step 2B. The additional elements are not evaluated under step 2A, prong One if they are abstract ideas.
Argument: (p. 11-12) Step 2A, Prong Two: Any Alleged Exception Is Integrated into a Practical Application… The disclosed hierarchical transformer architecture addresses that technical problem... A first-level entity-transformer block processes the source entity-relation pair and neighborhood entity-relation pairs to generate respective intermediate embeddings. A second-level context-transformer block aggregates those intermediate embeddings to generate a target entity embedding used for link prediction… These improvements are reflected in amended claim 21… The claim requires a source transformer and one or more neighborhood transformers…
Response: The claim recites “receiving, by a first-level transformer block, a source entity-relation pair information from the knowledge graph… receiving, by the first-level transformer block, neighborhood entity- relation pair information” which are insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g). The Applicant appears to argue that the improvements are reflected in the recited architecture, however the amended claim does not positively recite the architecture. The claim is suggested to explicitly recite the specific hierarchical architecture along with the particular flow of embeddings between components.
Argument: (p. 13-14) Step 2B: The Claims as a Whole Amount to Significantly More… The Action asserts that "leveraging a hierarchical transformer architecture is well known" and that the cited publications demonstrate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the claimed architecture… The USPTO's Berkheimer guidance further explains that merely finding an element in a prior-art publication is insufficient… The cited discussions of layers or transformer blocks in general-purpose language models do not address the claimed source- and neighborhood-pair processing… Moreover, the ordered combination must be evaluated as a whole…
Response: The Applicant appears to argue that the improvements are reflected in the recited architecture, however the amended claim does not positively recite the architecture. The claim is suggested to explicitly recite the specific hierarchical architecture along with the particular flow of embeddings between components. Further, when incorporating the exceptions with the additional elements to evaluate the claim as a whole, the ordered combination of elements of mental steps is still ordered abstract steps, i.e. the combination of mental steps does not make it patent eligible.
Conclusion
The limitations in claim 21
“receiving, by a first-level transformer block, a source entity-relation pair information from the knowledge graph;
receiving, by the first-level transformer block, neighborhood entity-relation pair information from the knowledge graph, wherein the first-level transformer block comprises a source transformer and one or more neighborhood transformers;
processing, by the source transformer, a source entity embedding and a predicate embedding of the source entity-relation pair information to generate a source intermediate embedding;
processing, by the one or more neighborhood transformers, one or more neighborhood entity embeddings and corresponding neighborhood relationship embeddings of the neighborhood entity-relation pair information to generate one or more neighborhood intermediate embeddings;
aggregating, by a second-level transformer block, the source intermediate embedding and the one or more neighborhood intermediate embeddings to generate a target entity embedding;”
have not been uncovered.
The closest prior art to the invention is the combination of Nathani and Peters. Nathani teaches the concepts of using a transformer block for source pairs and neighborhood pairs. Peters teaches using two sequential transformer blocks for the input. However, Peters is silent that the input are “source pairs and neighborhood pairs” in a knowledge graph, therefore Peters does not teach the intermediate results are “the source intermediate embedding and the one or more neighborhood intermediate embeddings” as claimed, let alone aggregating those source and neighborhood embeddings to generate an aggregated representation.
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 SU-TING CHUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5 PT.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
