DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 4/15/2026 for application number 18/154,637.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20 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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 (representative of independent claims 11) recites:
A computer-implemented method for knowledge-graph extrapolating based on multi-layer perception, the computer-implemented method comprising:
using relational graph convolutional network encoders to learn embedding representations of entities, relations, and timestamps, and capturing dynamic evolution of a fact;
designing emerging task processing units to construct multiple layers of entity sets, and assigning a matching historical relevance degree to the entity sets at each of the multiple layers, wherein the emerging task processing units search in the current fact for entities related to the prediction tasks and group the searched entities as entity sets of first, second, and third layers, and, by comparing all the entity sets of a data set, identify and group the entities that have never appeared into entity sets of a fourth layer, wherein at the first layer are the entity sets directly connected to relation predicates of the prediction tasks, at the second layer are the entity sets that can be reached by subject entities of the prediction tasks in one hop or two hops, at the third layer are the entity sets that can be reached through remaining paths in the current fact in multiple hops, and at the fourth layer are the entity sets that have never appeared historically;
classifying prediction tasks into different classes of reasoning scenes, and connecting each of the classes of the reasoning scenes to the processing unit for the corresponding layer, so as to accomplish partition of the multiple layers of the historically relevant entity sets; and
using a multi-class task solving method to acquire predicted probability distributions of target entities, and taking the entity having a highest level of probability as a prediction answer, so as to accomplish extrapolation of a temporal knowledge graph, and
processing the different prediction tasks at the different number of layers for the multi-layer path extrapolation and connecting each of the classes of the reasoning scenes to the processing unit for the corresponding layer, wherein the number of layers for the multi-layer path extrapolation corresponds to the entity sets at the multiple layers, wherein:
the prediction tasks are classified into different classes of reasoning scenes according to whether it contains any entity or any relation that has never appeared historically; and
the multi-class task solving method comprises applying a multilayer perceptron authentic neural network and a SoftMax logistic regression model to convert the prediction tasks into entity multi-class tasks, wherein each of the classes corresponds to the level of probability of one of the target entities, so that the entity having the highest level of probability is taken as the prediction answer.
(2A, prong 1) The underlined portions of the claim above recite an abstract idea; specifically, the underlined portions are a series of mathematical calculations and equations. Applicant’s specification discloses that the above underlined steps at paragraphs 53 – 91 (as published) are performed as a series of mathematical calculations and equations. "Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the underlined portions are mathematical calculations and equations.
(2A, prong 2) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional limitation of (a) generic computer hardware (like a “computer-implemented method” in claim 1, and “processor,” in claim 11). Additional element (a) is a mere instruction to apply the exception because it merely adds generic computer hardware after-the-fact to the abstract idea. Even when all of the additional elements are considered in ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add mere instruction to apply the exception to the mathematical calculations and equations.
(2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional element (a) is a mere instruction to apply the exception as explained above. Even when all of the additional elements are considered in ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they only add mere instruction to apply the exception to the mathematical calculations and equations.
For dependent claims 3-4 and 13-14, claims 3 and 13 explicitly recite an equation and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 4 and 14 is an additional calculation (see para. 0079-83 as published).
For dependent claims 6-7 and 16-17, claims 6 and 16 recite using Xaviar initialization and cross-entropy loss function, which are mathematical calculations, and claims 7 and 17 explicitly recite an equation.
For dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20, claims 9 and 19 explicitly recite a mathematical equation, and claims 10 and 20 recite using a mathematical function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Examiner notes the revised 101 rejection in light of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant argues that the claims are an improvement to the technical field of temporal knowledge-graph extrapolation systems through greater prediction accuracy. When considering patent subject matter eligibility when a claim purports to improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” See MPEP 2106.05(a). “The different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent eligible subject matter.” See In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that a mathematical calculation for haplotype predictions with increased accuracy was not an improvement to a technological process but to the mathematical calculation itself).
Here, the claimed improvement is to the functioning of the mathematical calculations for temporal knowledge graphs, and not to a technical field. In Ex Parte Desjardin, the improvements were, “to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.” Charles Kim, Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, Dec. 5, 2025. Here, the claimed improvements to accuracy flow solely from the improvements to the mathematical calculations and not how the model works in actual operation; that is to say, the improvements are not directed to solving real-world problems in the operation of a machine learning model on a computer as they were Ex Parte Desjardin. Therefore, the claims do not reflect a technical improvement that furnishes an inventive concept at step 2A, prong 2 or step 2B.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights