bankDETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/06/2025. Claims 1, 11, 14, and 20 are amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The 102 rejection of Claims 1-3, 14-16, and 20 are WITHDRAWN in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 103 rejection of Claims 4-6 and 17-19 are WITHDRAWN in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1:
The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitation classifying each node of the set of nodes into a classification based on the label associated with each node of the set of nodes amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea generating an explanation providing a reason for the classification amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea extracting a set of first sub-graphs from the received graph amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea reducing each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs to obtain a set of reduced sub-graphs corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea executing a first set of operations to obtain a set of second sub-graphs from the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on the reduction of each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, wherein the first set of operations includes:
determining a closest reduced sub-graph, from the set of reduced sub-graphs, corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining a set of coverage metrics based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs and the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining whether the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy a set of coverage conditions,
re-iterating the reduction of the extracted set of first sub-graphs based on the determination that the determined set of coverage metrics does not satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining the set of second sub-graphs from the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on an iterative control of the execution of the first set of operations until the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a first list of extract-nodes and a first list of non-extract-nodes in the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a second list of extract-nodes and a second list of non-extract-nodes based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a first distribution of node repetition and a first distribution of node degree associated with the first list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node repetition associated with the first list of non-extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node degree associated with the second list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a third distribution of node repetition associated with the second list of non-extract-nodes, wherein
the set of coverage metrics is determined based on at least one of:
the first distribution of node repetition,
the first distribution of node degree,
the second distribution of node repetition,
the second distribution of node degree, or
the third distribution of node repetition which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of using a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving graph data is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The additional element of using a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. The claim further recites a description of the extracting in the extracting a set of first-subgraphs step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. The claim further recites a description of the reducing in the reducing each first sub-graph step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 which incorporates the rejection of Claim 1, recites a further abstract idea the graph machine learning model corresponds to a graph explainable artificial intelligence (GXAI) engine which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the additional element a graph explainable artificial intelligence (GXAI) engine is generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of Claim 4. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites a further additional element training an explainable prediction model based on the GXAI engine and the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs is generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of Claim 5. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites a further additional element receiving an input sub-graph associated with the domain which is an insignificant extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element is further a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The claim recites further additional elements applying the trained explainable prediction model on the received input sub-graph and determining a prediction output based on the application of the trained explainable prediction model are generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an additional abstract idea identifying extract-nodes and non-extract-nodes from the set of nodes of the received graph to obtain a list of extract-nodes amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting a first extract-node from the list of extract-nodes as an extract-identifier (ID) which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea adding a first ring to a ring-list associated with the extract-ID as a latest ring, wherein the first ring encloses the extract-ID which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea executing a second set of operations to obtain a tuple associated with the extract-ID, wherein the second set of operations includes:
for each neighbor of each node that is enclosed by the latest ring:
determining whether the neighbor is enclosed by the latest ring,
adding the neighbor outside the latest ring based on the determination that the neighbor is not enclosed by the latest ring,
adding an edge associated with the added neighbor to an edge-list,
adding a ring that encloses the added neighbor to the ring-list, and
determining whether the latest ring is a last ring in the ring list, and setting the added ring as the latest ring and re-iterating the second set of operations, based on the determination that the latest ring is not the last ring in the ring-list which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining the tuple including the extract-ID, the ring-list, and the edge-list, based on an iterative control of the execution of the second set of operations until the latest ring is determined as the last ring in the ring-list which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea the extraction of the set of first sub-graphs is further based on the obtained tuple which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting, from the extracted set of first sub-graphs, a first sub-graph associated with an extract-ID which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a ring node target of each ring in a ring list and a graph size target associated with the selected first sub-graph, wherein
the ring node target of a corresponding ring is determined based on at least one of a size of the selected first sub-graph, the graph size target, or a ring weight of the corresponding ring, and
the graph size target is determined based on at least one of the size of the selected first sub-graph, a target number of nodes, a target number of edges, or a combination of the target number of nodes and the target number of edges which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting a ring, from the ring list, as a current ring based on a determination that the selected current ring is unprotected, wherein
nodes that are enclosed by protected rings are retained during reduction of the selected first sub-graph which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea executing a third set of operations to obtain a reduced sub-graph of the set of reduced sub-graphs corresponding to the selected first sub-graph, wherein the third set of operations includes:
selecting a node enclosed by the selected current ring, wherein the selection of the node is a random selection,
removing, from the selected first sub-graph, the selected random node and edges associated with the selected random node,
determining, based on the removal, whether there exists any disconnected nodes in the selected first sub-graph,
removing, from the selected first sub-graph, the disconnected nodes and edges associated with the disconnected nodes based on the determination of the existence of the disconnected nodes,
determining whether there exists nodes that are farther from the extract-ID beyond a hop limit, removing, from the selected first sub-graph, the nodes beyond the hop limit and edges associated with the nodes, based on the determination of the existence of the nodes beyond the hop limit,
determining whether the graph size target is satisfied based on the removal of the selected random node, the disconnected nodes, and the nodes beyond the hop limit, determining whether the current ring satisfies the determined ring node target, and
re-selecting, from the selected first sub-graph, an unprotected ring subsequent to the selected current ring as the current ring, based on exit criteria including at least one of:
the determination that the graph size target is not satisfied, or
the determination that the ring node target of the selected current ring is satisfied; and
obtaining the reduced sub-graph from the selected first sub-graph, based on an iterative control of the execution of the third set of operations until the graph size target is satisfied which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting, from the extracted set of first sub-graphs, an extracted first sub-graph which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting the set of reduced sub-graphs corresponding to the selected extracted first sub-graph as a reduced sub-graph set which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a first vector based on an application of the graph kernel encoder on the selected extracted first sub-graph which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea for each reduced sub-graph in the reduced sub-graph set:
determining a second vector based on an application of the graph kernel encoder on a current reduced sub-graph of the reduced sub-graph set, and
determining a correlation coefficient between the selected extracted first sub-graph and the current reduced sub-graph, based on the determined first vector and the determined second vector which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea selecting a reduced sub-graph, from the reduced sub-graph set, as the closest sub-graph corresponding to the selected extracted first sub-graph, based on the determined correlation coefficient which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of training a graph kernel encoder based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs is generally linked to the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B:
The additional element of training a graph kernel encoder based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs is generally linked to the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a distribution skew based on the first distribution of node repetition which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a first correlation coefficient based on the first distribution of node degree and the second distribution of node degree which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second correlation coefficient based on the second distribution of node repetition and the third distribution of node repetition which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining whether the determined distribution skew is compliant with a first coverage condition of the set of coverage conditions, the determined first correlation coefficient is compliant with a second coverage condition of the set of coverage conditions, and the determined second correlation coefficient is compliant with a third coverage condition of the set of coverage conditions, wherein
the first coverage condition is satisfied if the determined distribution skew is less than a threshold distribution skew,
the second coverage condition is satisfied if the determined first correlation coefficient is greater than a threshold first correlation coefficient, and
the third coverage condition is satisfied if the determined second correlation coefficient is greater than a threshold second correlation coefficient. which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. The claim further recites a description of the domain in the receiving a graph step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. The claim further recites a description of the domain and graph architecture in the receiving a graph step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitation classifying each node of the set of nodes into a classification based on the label associated with each node of the set of nodes amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea generating an explanation providing a reason for the classification amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea extracting a set of first sub-graphs from the received graph amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea reducing each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs to obtain a set of reduced sub-graphs corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea executing a first set of operations to obtain a set of second sub-graphs from the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on the reduction of each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, wherein the first set of operations includes:
determining a closest reduced sub-graph, from the set of reduced sub-graphs, corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining a set of coverage metrics based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs and the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining whether the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy a set of coverage conditions,
re-iterating the reduction of the extracted set of first sub-graphs based on the determination that the determined set of coverage metrics does not satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining the set of second sub-graphs from the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on an iterative control of the execution of the first set of operations until the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a first list of extract-nodes and a first list of non-extract-nodes in the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a second list of extract-nodes and a second list of non-extract-nodes based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a first distribution of node repetition and a first distribution of node degree associated with the first list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node repetition associated with the first list of non-extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node degree associated with the second list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a third distribution of node repetition associated with the second list of non-extract-nodes, wherein
the set of coverage metrics is determined based on at least one of:
the first distribution of node repetition,
the first distribution of node degree,
the second distribution of node repetition,
the second distribution of node degree, or
the third distribution of node repetition which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of using a non-transitory computer-readable storage media is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using an electronic device is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving graph data is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The additional element of using a non-transitory computer-readable storage media is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using an electronic device is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 incorporates the rejection of Claim 14. The claim further recites a description of the extracting in the extracting a set of first-subgraphs step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 14. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 incorporates the rejection of Claim 14. The claim further recites a description of the reducing in the reducing each first sub-graph step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 14. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 which incorporates the rejection of Claim 14, recites a further abstract idea the graph machine learning model corresponds to a graph explainable artificial intelligence (GXAI) engine which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the additional element a graph explainable artificial intelligence (GXAI) engine is generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 incorporates the rejection of Claim 17. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites a further additional element training an explainable prediction model based on the GXAI engine and the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs is generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 incorporates the rejection of Claim 18. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites a further additional element receiving an input sub-graph associated with the domain which is an insignificant extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element is further a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The claim recites further additional elements applying the trained explainable prediction model on the received input sub-graph and determining a prediction output based on the application of the trained explainable prediction model are generally linked to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1:
The claim recites an electronic device, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitation classifying each node of the set of nodes into a classification based on the label associated with each node of the set of nodes amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea generating an explanation providing a reason for the classification amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea extracting a set of first sub-graphs from the received graph amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea reducing each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs to obtain a set of reduced sub-graphs corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea executing a first set of operations to obtain a set of second sub-graphs from the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on the reduction of each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, wherein the first set of operations includes:
determining a closest reduced sub-graph, from the set of reduced sub-graphs, corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining a set of coverage metrics based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs and the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs,
determining whether the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy a set of coverage conditions,
re-iterating the reduction of the extracted set of first sub-graphs based on the determination that the determined set of coverage metrics does not satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining the set of second sub-graphs from the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs, based on an iterative control of the execution of the first set of operations until the determined set of coverage metrics satisfy the set of coverage conditions which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a first list of extract-nodes and a first list of non-extract-nodes in the determined closest reduced sub-graph corresponding to each first sub-graph of the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea obtaining a second list of extract-nodes and a second list of non-extract-nodes based on the extracted set of first sub-graphs which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a first distribution of node repetition and a first distribution of node degree associated with the first list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node repetition associated with the first list of non-extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a second distribution of node degree associated with the second list of extract-nodes which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
The claim recites an additional abstract idea determining a third distribution of node repetition associated with the second list of non-extract-nodes, wherein
the set of coverage metrics is determined based on at least one of:
the first distribution of node repetition,
the first distribution of node degree,
the second distribution of node repetition,
the second distribution of node degree, or
the third distribution of node repetition which amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of using an electronic device is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using a memory storing instructions is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving graph data is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The additional element of using an electronic device is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using a memory storing instructions is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of using a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element receiving a graph representative of a domain, and a label associated with each node of a set of nodes of the received graph does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of training a graph machine learning model based on the obtained set of second subgraphs and the received label associated with each node amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 101
Argument 1: Claims 1,4, and 20 have been amended to recite “classifying each node of the set of nodes into a classification based on the label associated with each node of the set of nodes” and “generating an explanation providing a reason for the classification”, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into practical application of a graph node classification task and is significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment of generating an explanation is clearly an abstract idea that can be performed in a human mind. A reason could be thought of in a human mind for the classification. The limitation of “classifying each node of the set of nodes into a classification based on the label associated with each node” is also able to be performed in a human mind. This limitation only requires classifying based on a label which could be done in a human mind after knowing the label of each node. Since these two limitations are abstract ideas, they do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application of a graph node classification task or amount to significantly more. The claims do not show an improvement of a computer or technology.
Conclusion
Regarding Claims 1-9 and 11-20, complete prior art search was performed and no prior art was uncovered that would anticipate or fairly suggest the features in these claims. These claims are not rejected under prior art.
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 JESSE CHEN COULSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/JESSE C COULSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122