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
The following is a Final Office action. In response to communications received 10/8/2025, Applicant, on 1/8/2026, amended claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 and 14-20. Claims 2 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the 101 rejection remains.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the 103 rejection is hereby removed.
Response to Argument
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the “amended claims are directed towards creating an interactive query result includes information how the insight is formed.” Applicant also identifies that the interactive query result is then sent to an organizational user which can modify this information used to form the insight to trigger the formation of a new interactive query insight.” For these argued reasons, Applicant alleges that the “process provides a novel mechanism to fine tune and adjust queries directed to a computer system and is not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity” (See Remarks at pg. 15). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the process of observing and evaluating insights utilizing a metadata graph representative of assets of an organization is a mental process. This process provides and organizes queries for a user to manipulate and modify. The method of gathering organizational insights for a user’s decision on organizational queries is a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Further with respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is statutory by attempting to analogize the claimed invention to the claims analyzed and found eligible in the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision, specifically by alleging that the amended claims are drawn to “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” (See Remarks at page 16). As an example, Applicant alleges that “the concepts therein are integrated into a practical application of forming insights from information sorted into k-partite graphs, providing those insights with information describing how the insight was formed to an organizational user, and modifying the insights based on interaction with the information from the organizational user, providing users with a more efficient and more transparent way to gather and understand specific data when searching very large datasets” (See Remarks at pgs. 16-17). In response, however, the Examiner emphasizes that, while the claims in Enfish were directed toward addressing problems related to configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, the claimed solution represents improvements to software including “benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.” Therefore, Enfish’s claims are distinguishable from Applicant's claims because the practice of organizing and evaluating observe insights in k-partite graphs to provide an organizational user with a modified query result is not rooted in, or reasonably understood as encompassing, a software-based invention that improves the performance of the computer system itself. In fact, the practice of organizing and evaluating observe insights in k-partite graphs to provide an organizational user with a modified query result is merely directed to idea(s) itself via evaluating organizational insight information through k-partite metadata graphs operable on general-purpose computer components.
Also, with respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that “the claims include significantly more than that which the Examiner contends is abstract” (See Remarks at pgs. 17-18). Specifically, Applicant argues that the “amended independent claims provide an unconventional technological solution (an insight service) to a technological problem (providing users with an answer to a query that provides the context behind the answer and the ability for the user to modify the information used to create the answer to form a new answer)” (See Remarks at pg. 18). However, Examiner notes that the amended claim recites an evaluative process of using a metadata graph uses keyword matching and semantic similarity calculations to present organizational insights to a user for modification. As described in further detail in the first argument above, the amended independent claim recites a mental process and a method of organizing human activity. The additional elements recited in the claims are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions and do not amount to significantly more. See the evidence provided in Step 2B of the 101 rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2026 and 4/29/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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 therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed method in claims 1 and 3-11; the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium in claims 12 and 14-19 and the claimed system in claim 20 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A method for insight creation filtering, the method comprising:
Receiving, at an insight service, a transparent insight query comprising a query expression, wherein the transparent insight query is transmitted by a device of an organizational user and the query expression is a series of terms that represent a query posed by the organizational user;
Extracting one or more an expression keywords from the query expression;
obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog wherein the metadata graph is a connected graph that maps a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata that describes a collection of assets known to the insight service and wherein the metadata graph comprises nodes representative of the collection of assets and edges representative of relationships between the collection of assets;
filtering, based on the one or more expression keyword, the metadata graph to identify a node subset, wherein filtering comprises keyword matching the one or more expression keywords to the asset metadata and semantic similarity calculation between the one or more expression keywords and the asset metadata;
generating a k-partite metadata graph using the node subset;
creating an interactive query result based on the k-partite metadata graph, wherein the
interactive query result comprises:
an insight inferred to address the transparent insight query using an insight inferring model on an asset metadata corpus obtained from the k-partite metadata graph,
a manifest listing providing a set of insight-pertinent assets represents information providing transparency as to how the insight had been produced,
a model input snapshot listing inputs used to infer the insight, and
a model snapshot revealing a technique used to infer the insight;
transmitting the interactive query result to the device of the organization user, wherein the organizational user interacts with the interactive query result by adjusting the set of the insight-pertinent assets;
detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device; and
creating a new interactive query result based on the user interaction.
Claim 12:
A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor, enables the computer processor to perform a method for insight creation filtering, the method comprising:
Receiving, at an insight service, a transparent insight query comprising a query expression, wherein the transparent insight query is transmitted by a device of an organizational user and the query expression is a series of terms that represent a query posed by the organizational user;
Extracting one or more an expression keywords from the query expression;
obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog, wherein the metadata graph is a connected graph that maps a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata that describes a collection of assets known to the insight service;
filtering, based on the one or more expression keyword, the metadata graph to identify a node subset, wherein filtering comprises keyword matching and semantic similarity calculations;
generating a k-partite metadata graph using the node subset;
creating an interactive query result based on the k-partite metadata graph, wherein the interactive query result comprises:
an insight inferred to address the transparent insight query using an insight inferring model on an asset metadata corpus obtained from the k-partite metadata graph,
a manifest listing providing a set of insight-pertinent assets represents information providing transparency as to how the insight had been produced,
a model input snapshot listing inputs used to infer the insight, and
a model snapshot revealing a technique used to infer the insight;
transmitting the interactive query result to the device of the organization user, wherein the organizational user interacts with the interactive query result by adjusting the set of the insight-pertinent assets;
detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device; and
creating a new interactive query result based on the user interaction.
Claim 20:
A system, the system comprising: a client device; and an insight agent operative connected to the client device, and comprising a computer processor configured to perform a method for insight creation filtering, the method comprising:
Receiving, at an insight service, a transparent insight query comprising a query expression, wherein the transparent insight query is transmitted by a device of an organizational user and the query expression is a series of terms that represent a query posed by the organizational user;
Extracting one or more an expression keywords from the query expression;
obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog wherein the metadata graph is a connected graph that maps a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata that describes a collection of assets known to the insight service;
filtering, based on the one or more expression keywords, the metadata graph to identify a node subset, wherein filtering comprises keyword matching and semantic similarity calculations;
generating a k-partite metadata graph using the node subset;
creating an interactive query result based on the k-partite metadata graph, wherein the
interactive query result comprises:
an insight inferred to address the transparent insight query using an insight inferring model on an asset metadata corpus obtained from the k-partite metadata graph,
a manifest listing providing a set of insight-pertinent assets represents information providing transparency as to how the insight had been produced,
a model input snapshot listing inputs used to infer the insight, and
a model snapshot revealing a technique used to infer the insight;
transmitting the interactive query result to the device of the organization user, wherein the organizational user interacts with the interactive query result by adjusting the set of the insight-pertinent assets;
detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device; and
creating a new interactive query result based on the user interaction.
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing
human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance,
mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities,
teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to observing and evaluating insights utilizing a metadata graph representative of assets of an organization. Specifically, the above claims recite data gathering steps to observe insights that are then evaluated. Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., receiving, at an insight service, a transparent insight query comprising a query expression, wherein the transparent insight query is transmitted by a device of an organizational user and the query expression is a series of terms that represent a query posed by the organizational user; obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog wherein the metadata graph is a connected graph that maps a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata that describes a collection of assets known to the insight service and wherein the metadata graph comprises nodes representative of the collection of assets and edges representative of relationships between the collection of assets; a model input snapshot listing inputs used to infer the insight, a model snapshot revealing a technique used to infer the insight; transmitting the interactive query result to the device of the organization user, wherein the organizational user interacts with the interactive query result by adjusting the set of the insight-pertinent assets; detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device; etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g., filtering, based on the expression keyword, the metadata graph to identify a node subset; generating a k-partite metadata graph using the node subset; creating an interactive query result based on the k-partite metadata graph; and creating a new interactive query result based on the user interaction; etc.); storing data; displaying data and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims. Additionally, the additional elements, “detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device;” and “extracting an expression keyword from the query expression;” are insignificant extra-solution activity. The detection of user interaction is a result of mere data gathering from a user’s interaction with a device. Also, the courts have recognized that extracting data from a document, such as extracting an expression keyword, is a well-understood, routine and conventional function (See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Therefore, this limitation fails to practically apply the abstract idea.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for evaluating organizational insights using a metadata graph) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0085-0088, “the computing system (400) may include one or more computer processors (402), non-persistent storage (404) (e.g., volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), cache memory), persistent storage (406) (e.g., a hard disk, an optical drive such as a compact disk (CD) drive or digital versatile disk (DVD) drive, a flash memory, etc.), a communication interface (412) (e.g., Bluetooth interface, infrared interface, network interface, optical interface, etc.), input devices (410), output devices (408), and numerous other elements (not shown) and functionalities. Each of these components is described below. In one embodiment disclosed herein, the computer processor(s) (402) may be an integrated circuit for processing instructions. For example, the computer processor(s) may be one or more cores or micro-cores of a central processing unit (CPU) and/or a graphics processing unit (GPU)… the computing system (400) may include one or more output devices (408), such as a screen (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display, touchscreen, cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor, projector, or other display device), a printer, external storage, or any other output device. One or more of the output devices may be the same or different from the input device(s). The input and output device(s) may be locally or remotely connected to the computer processor(s) (402), non-persistent storage (404), and persistent storage (406). Many different types of computing systems exist, and the aforementioned input and output device(s) may take other forms. Software instructions in the form of computer readable program code to perform embodiments disclosed herein may be stored, in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently, on a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a CD, DVD, storage device, a diskette, a tape, flash memory, physical memory, or any other computer readable storage medium. Specifically, the software instructions may correspond to computer readable program code that, when executed by a processor(s), is configured to perform one or more embodiments disclosed herein.” As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (e.g., computer receives and providing query information over a network; “detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device;”); extracting data from a document (See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (e.g. “extracting an expression keyword from the query expression;”); and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (e.g. obtaining a metadata graph from a catalog) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
The dependent claims 3-11, 14-18 and 19 recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Specifically, claims 4-5, 8 and 15 are merely descriptive of the insights and the interactive query result that is developed from evaluating the insights. These descriptions further expand on the above abstract idea and therefore, also recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the mathematical function of an inference forming algorithm for evaluating asset metadata, which is an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17-19 further narrow evaluative steps of creating an interactive query result. Claims 17-19 recite receiving and transmitting query information according to user interaction and displaying the result of a query following evaluation, which amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere selection of a particular type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 further narrows the extraction of a keyword from a query expression. As noted in Step 2A, prong two above, courts have recognized that extracting data from a document is a well-understood, routine and conventional function (See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Therefore, this limitation fails to practically apply the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under 101. The most closely applicable prior art of record is referred to in the Office Action mailed 10/22/2025 as Burnett et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2021/0342125, hereinafter referred to as Burnett). Burnett discloses a method and system for extracting keywords from search nodes to be analyzed in a metadata graph to generate a new query result. While Burnett is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Specifically, Burnett and other cited references, fail to disclose the bolded independent claim limitations: A method for insight creation filtering, the method comprising: Receiving, at an insight service, a transparent insight query comprising a query expression, wherein the transparent insight query is transmitted by a device of an organizational user and the query expression is a series of terms that represent a query posed by the organizational user; Extracting one or more an expression keywords from the query expression; obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog wherein the metadata graph is a connected graph that maps a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata that describes a collection of assets known to the insight service and wherein the metadata graph comprises nodes representative of the collection of assets and edges representative of relationships between the collection of assets; filtering, based on the one or more expression keyword, the metadata graph to identify a node subset, wherein filtering comprises keyword matching the one or more expression keywords to the asset metadata and semantic similarity calculation between the one or more expression keywords and the asset metadata; generating a k-partite metadata graph using the node subset; creating an interactive query result based on the k-partite metadata graph, wherein the interactive query result comprises: an insight inferred to address the transparent insight query using an insight inferring model on an asset metadata corpus obtained from the k-partite metadata graph, a manifest listing providing a set of insight-pertinent assets represents information providing transparency as to how the insight had been produced, a model input snapshot listing inputs used to infer the insight, and a model snapshot revealing a technique used to infer the insight; transmitting the interactive query result to the device of the organization user, wherein the organizational user interacts with the interactive query result by adjusting the set of the insight-pertinent assets; detecting a user interaction with the interactive query result on-demand telemetry from the device; and creating a new interactive query result based on the user interaction. Thus, rendering independent claims as allowable over the prior art. Therefore, the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in independent claims 1, 12 and 20 cannot be found in the prior art and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burnett et al. (US 2021/0342125): Systems and methods are disclosed for implementing dual textual/graphical programming interfaces for programming streaming data processing pipelines. A user interface is provided that enables a user to author a processing pipeline as a query in a query language, and to request conversion of that query language into a graph data structure representation of the pipeline, which can be visualized in the interface. The interface further enables modification of the graph via interaction with the visualization.
Neumann et al. (US 2021/0004691): An artificial intelligence system for behavioral pattern matching and language generation includes at least a server. The system includes a behavior modification module operating on the at least a server, wherein the behavior modification module is designed and configured to receive at least a request for a behavior modification and generate a behavior modification model as a function of the at least a request for behavior modification. The system includes an artificial intelligence advisor operating on the at least a server, wherein the artificial intelligence advisor is configured to receive at least a user input from a user client device, generate at least a textual output using the behavior modification model and the at least a user input, and transmit the at least a textual output to the user client device.
Hakkani-Tur et al. (US 2014/0059030): Natural language query translation may be provided. A statistical model may be trained to detect domains according to a plurality of query click log data. Upon receiving a natural language query, the statistical model may be used to translate the natural language query into an action. The action may then be performed and at least one result associated with performing the action may be provided.
Prasad et al. (US 2022/0244937): A device may receive requirement data identifying a requirement for modification of software code, and may process the requirement data, with a machine learning model, to identify entities and intents in the software code and to generate a query. The device may process the query, with a code locator model, to encode text of the query into high-dimensional vectors and to identify a semantic similarity between the high-dimensional vectors and code text. The device may process the query, the semantic similarity, and the code text, with a code developer model, to generate metadata, and may utilize the metadata to identify an identifier associated with the software code. The device may determine, utilizing the identifier, a portion of the software code, and may modify the portion of the software code based on the query to generate modified software code. The device may perform actions based on the modified software code.
Hasan et al. (US 2012/0036123): Methods, articles of manufacture and a system for providing query suggestions using a query log that includes a number of user sessions. The sessions comprise training data including a sequence of a plurality of sets of queries, some of the sets of queries including query transitions followed by a purchase related event. The query log is cleaned and normalized. From the cleaned and normalized query log stationary scores and transition scores of at least some of the plurality of sets is generated. A set of query suggestions is built and similarity scores are computed for at least some of the set of query suggestions to determine whether individual ones of the at least some of the set of query suggestions meet a predetermined assurance level. Those that meet the level are included as elements of the set of query suggestions that meet the predetermined assurance level. The set of query suggestions are mixed and ranked in accordance with a user behavior sought to be optimized.
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 ALLISON NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-TH.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights