DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/14/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-16, 18-24 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 14, and 19 are independent claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-11, 14-16, 18-24 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 Statutory Category: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial Exception: Claim 1 recites, in part, “processing, …, a class network graph, from the entity network graph, that corresponds to an entity class corresponding to the entity …, to output a predictive classification for the particular node based on a comparison between the class network graph and the entity network graph”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a particular overlap score between the class network graph and a particular node cluster of the entity network graph”. This limitation, in light of applicant’s specification paragraph 0076, covers the recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case an evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites that the method is “computer-implemented”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “receiving, …, an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of interaction data objects for the entity”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Further, the claim recites: “by one or more processors” and “by the one or more processors”. These limitations are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites the elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction data code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code”. These limitations are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Significantly More: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: that the method is “computer-implemented”, “by one or more processors”, and “by the one or more processors” amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “receiving, …, an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of interaction data objects for the entity” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, the limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Further, the claim recites the additional elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction data code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code” that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and further, is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the predictive classification comprises an entity subclass label”. This limitation is a continuation of the “processing, …, a class network graph, from the entity network graph, that corresponds to an entity class corresponding to the entity …, to output a predictive classification for the particular node based on a comparison between the class network graph and the entity network graph” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Further, the claim recites: “the computer-implemented method further comprises: assigning the entity subclass label to the entity”. This limitation recites mental processes in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the class network graph comprises a plurality of class nodes arranged into the one or more node clusters, and wherein the particular node cluster comprises a subset of the plurality of class nodes”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as taught by activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2, Di Francescantoni et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20230245357, Paragraph 0009, Lines 2-8, “The first one is the cluster calculation usually referred simply as clustering that consists, starting from a given network graph, in associating each node to a cluster. Several different methods are available for clustering. To ensure scalability for large network graph it is also common that clusters can be nested to each other arranged in a parent/child tree”). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “identifying one or more entity nodes from the entity network graph that correspond to the subset of the plurality of class nodes”. This limitation recites mental processes in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Further, the claim recites: “determining the particular overlap score based at least in part on an aggregation of a respective node weight for each of the one or more entity nodes”. This limitation recites mathematical concepts in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the particular node cluster corresponds to the predictive classification”. This limitation is a continuation of the “identifying the particular node cluster from the one or more node clusters based on the one or more overlap scores, wherein a particular overlap score for the particular node cluster is a highest overlap score relative to the one or more overlap scores” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “identifying the class network graph corresponding to a particular entity class from the domain empirical taxonomy”. This limitation recites a mental process in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Further, the claim recites: “receiving a domain empirical taxonomy for a domain taxonomy associated with the entity, wherein: (i) the domain taxonomy comprises a plurality of entity classes, and (ii) the domain empirical taxonomy comprises a respective class taxonomy for each of the plurality of entity classes”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Further, the limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the domain empirical taxonomy is previously generated by a third party”. This limitation is a continuation of the “identifying the class network graph corresponding to the entity class from the domain empirical taxonomy” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “selecting a machine learning model for the entity based at least in part on the predictive classification and one or more evaluation metrics for the machine learning model”. This limitation recites mental process in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the one or more evaluation metrics comprise an evaluation metric corresponding to each of the one or more node clusters of the class network graph”. This limitation is a continuation of the “selecting a machine learning model for the entity based on the predictive classification and one or more evaluation metrics for the machine learning model” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the one or more evaluation metrics comprise a true positive rate for the machine learning model relative to a plurality of historical entities associated with the predictive classification”. This limitation is a continuation of the “selecting a machine learning model for the entity based on the predictive classification and one or more evaluation metrics for the machine learning model” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claim 14 is directed to a machine, which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial Exception: Claim 14 recites, in part, “processing a class network graph, from the entity network graph, that corresponds to an entity class corresponding to the entity …, to output a predictive classification for the particular node based on a comparison between the class network graph and the entity network graph”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a particular overlap score between the class network graph and a particular node cluster of the entity network graph”. This limitation, in light of applicant’s specification paragraph 0076, covers the recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case an evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites: “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “receiving an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of interaction data objects for the entity”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Further, the claim recites the elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code”. These limitations are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Significantly More: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element: “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “receiving an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of interaction data objects for the entity” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, this limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Further, the claim recites the additional elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code” that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional elements “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and further, is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 2 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 3 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, and further, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 19:
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claim 19 is directed to a machine, which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial Exception: Claim 19 recites, in part, “process a class network graph, from the entity network graph, that corresponds to an entity class corresponding to the entity …, to output a predictive classification for the particular node based on a comparison between the class network graph and the entity network graph”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a particular overlap score between the class network graph and a particular node cluster of the entity network graph”. This limitation, in light of applicant’s specification paragraph 0076, covers the recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case an evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “one or more processors”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “receiving an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of iteration data objects for the entity”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Further, the claim recites the elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code”. These limitations are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model”. These limitations are additional elements that amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Significantly More: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions” and “one or more processors” amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “receiving an entity network graph for an entity based at least in part on a plurality of iteration data objects for the entity” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and further, is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Further, the claim recites the additional elements: “(i) an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises an interaction code”, “(ii) the entity network graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges”, “(iii) a particular node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a particular interaction code of at least one of the plurality of interaction data objects”, “(iv) a particular edge of the plurality of edges connects a node pair of the plurality of nodes that is associated with a particular interaction data object”, “(v) the particular node is associated with a node weight, wherein the node weight is based at least in part on a code count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the particular interaction code”, and “(vi) the particular edge is associated with an edge weight, wherein the node pair corresponds to a first interaction code and a second interaction code that are associated with the particular interaction data object, and the edge weight is based at least in part on a code pair count identifying a number of the plurality of interaction data objects that comprise the first interaction code and the second interaction code” that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional elements “…with a detection model…” and “using the detection model” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element “outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and further, is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, and further, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “generating a nodal community comprising the particular node and a plurality of community nodes, wherein a community node of the plurality of community nodes comprises the predictive classification of the particular node”. This limitation recites mental processes in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the detection model comprises a graph community detection algorithm”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 6 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 7 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections to the claims have been fully considered, and overcome the rejections set forth in the final office action dated 06/15/2026. Consequently, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Argument 1:
Applicant first argues, in page 9, final paragraph of the response – page 10, first paragraph, that the independent claims 1, 14, and 19, do not recite a judicial exception at all because the “processing” step has been amended to specify that the operations at issue are affirmatively performed by a recited detection model.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply performing the abstract idea using the detection model does not render the limitation eligible. Mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Further, the claim does not provide any details as to what the “detection model” is, and thus the “detection model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation could be a framework for thinking in the human mind. Further, applicant points to the newly added final limitations of the independent claims, and while the “generating” step recites “using the detection model”, this limitation merely generally links the judicial exception to a particular technology, and the generating step remains an abstract idea using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s specification as detailed in the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above.
Argument 2:
Applicant next argues, in page 10, paragraph 2 of the response, that the recited network graph is an improved data structure that provides more granular insight into the actual interactions of an entity and improves classification accuracy.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement to classification may be an improvement in an abstract idea, but not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as a computer; and further, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). With regard to the “improved data structure”, the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, but rather merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Argument 3:
Applicant next argues, in page 11, paragraph 2, of the response, that claim 1 is anchored to a detection model that processes weighted graph data structures, to output a predictive classification which is not a technique a human mind could replicate.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner Respectfully disagrees. Mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Further, the claim does not provide any details as to what the “detection model” is, and thus the “detection model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation could be a framework for thinking in the human mind.
Argument 4:
Applicant next argues, on page 12, paragraphs 1-2 of the response, that a human mind cannot perform the operations of claim 1, and specifically points to “(i) computing a respective overlap score between the class network graph and each node cluster of the entity network graph, (ii) identifying the node cluster with the highest overlap score, and (iii), outputting a predictive classification based on that node cluster”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of applicant’s specification paragraph 0076, “the overlap score may be determined based on an overlap between the entity nodes of an entity network graph and the class nodes of a node cluster of a class network graph”, a human mind is capable of observing the network graph and the node cluster and using their judgment to determine how much of an overlap is present, and assign a score. In terms of identifying the node cluster with the highest overlap score, a human mind can evaluate the difference in scores and select the highest one. With regard to (iii), this limitation has been identified as an additional element and analyzed accordingly in the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above.
Argument 5:
Applicant next argues, in page 12, final paragraph – page 13, first paragraph of the response, that claim 1 integrates the exception into a practical application because the recited weighted-graph architecture and detection-model-based overlap scoring improve data segmentation and predictive classification.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement to classification and overlap scoring may be an improvement in an abstract idea, but not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as a computer; and further, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). With regard to the “weighted-graph architecture”, the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, but rather merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Argument 6:
Applicant next argues, in page 13-14 of the response, that the recited limitations of claim 1 improve a technical field, namely data segmentation and predictive classification, and specifically points to an “improved network graph architecture”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement to classification and data segmentation may be an improvement in an abstract idea, but not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as a computer; and further, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). With regard to the “network graph architecture”, the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, but rather merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Argument 7:
Applicant next argues, on page 14, final paragraph – page 15, first paragraph of the response, that claim 1 recites an unconventional combination of operations and data structures, and that there is not proper Berkheimer evidence for the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Proper Berkheimer evidence was provided where required, “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III). Further, with regard to the “unconventional combination”, the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, but rather merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome, as the limitations regarding the data structure do not include particulars, with several of the objects being determined “based at least in part” on other things, and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant's arguments regarding the remainder of the claims rely upon the arguments asserted with respect to the independent claims, and are thus unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-16, 18-24 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 only. A complete prior art search was performed for these claims; however, no prior art was uncovered that discloses or fairly suggests the following claimed features:
After detailed search, the cited arts, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed
subject matter of claims 1, 14, and 19:
In claims 1, 14, and 19:
…wherein processing the class network graph comprises:
generating, using the detection model, a particular overlap score between the class network graph and a particular node cluster of the entity network graph; and
outputting the predictive classification for the particular node based at least in part on the particular node cluster having a highest overlap score relative to one or more node clusters within the entity network graph
The closest prior art of record includes:
Azmy et al., Matching Entities Across Different Knowledge Graphs with Graph Embeddings, 05/15/2019, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.06607) discloses determining what could be considered an overlap score between two different network graphs but does not disclose calculating an overlap score for each cluster of a network graph and identifying the highest one in order to make a prediction as required by the claims.
An et al., KnowAugNet: Multi-source medical knowledge augmented medication prediction network with multi-Level graph contrastive learning, 04/28/2022, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.11736 teaches a multi-sourced medical knowledge augmented medication prediction network which captures the relations between medical codes via multi-level graph contrastive learning but does not teach class network graphs nor comparing the class network graph and the entity network graph to determine overlap scores as required by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY CLARKE SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. ET..
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.
/M.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
