DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 7/26/2023 . Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 3. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 is missing its dependency statement. This minor error would lead to 112(b) and 101 software per se rejections; however, as the structure of the claim is similar to claim 11, Examiner is interpreting as depending from claim 12 for all other rejections. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 4 . 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. 5 . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more . Step 1 – Statutory Categories As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1- 11 are processes (methods) , and c laims 12 -20 are machines (systems or devices) . Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited Claim 1 (similarly claim 12 ) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”: 1. A method comprising: inferring a respective classification of each column of a plurality of columns in a table in a particular document (evaluation) ; generating, based on the classifications of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document, a plurality of vertices (judgment) ; and generating, based on the classifications of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document and a particular portion of the particular document that does not contain the table, a plurality of edges (opinion) ; wherein the method is performed one or more computers. Claim 1 (similarly claims 12 ) is directed to a series of steps for prepar ing the tabular data for graph analytics , which is a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people ( social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions ) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations) . Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a). Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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 as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because one or more computers and one or more machine-readable non-transitory media are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea . The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the one or more computers and one or more machine-readable non-transitory media amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Th us, claim s 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. Dependent c laims 2- 11 and 13-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore , c laims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6 . The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 7 . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/029582 to Tomkins et al. (“ Tomkins ”). 8. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claim 12) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, inferring a respective classification of each column of a plurality of columns in a table in a particular document (See [0248] discussing graphical or tabular elements and perform operations to obtain a table title, row title, row identifier, column title, column identifier, or other table elements as one or more n-gram sets . ) ; generating, based on the classifications of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document, a plurality of vertices (See [0040] discussing the ontology graphs including vertices that represent different n-grams and [0262] discussing t h e determining of embedding vectors. ) ; and generating, based on the classifications of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document and a particular portion of the particular document that does not contain the table, a plurality of edges (See [0314] discussing t he first vertex may be associated with a second vertex via a graph edge, where the second vertex may be mapped to a second n-gram “symptom1,” and where the graph edge may be associated with relationship type “cause.” ; wherein the method is performed one or more computers (See [0003] discussing the NLU as funning on a computer.) . 9 . With regards to claim 2 (similarly claim 1 3 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, inferring, from the particular portion of the particular document that does not contain the table, a classification of the particular portion of the particular document (See [0314] and [0321] . ) , and using, as the classification of the plurality of edges, the classification of the particular portion of the particular document (See [0314] and [0321] . ) . 9 . With regards to claim 3 (similarly claim 14 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, wherein said inferring the classifications of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document comprises generating a new sentence for each column of the plurality of columns (See [ 0244 ] -[0248] . ) . 9 . With regards to claim 4 (similarly claim 1 5 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, wherein said generating the new sentence for a particular column of the plurality of columns in the table in the particular document comprises concatenating values stored in the particular column (See [ 0244 ] -[0248]. ) . 9 . With regards to claim 5 (similarly claim 1 6 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, the classification of a particular column of the plurality of columns inferred, based on said generating the new sentence, is inconclusive (See [ 0244 ] -[0248] and [0314 ] . ) ; the method further comprises in response to the classification of the particular column being inconclusive: inferring a respective classification of each word in a plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document that does not contain the table (See [ 0314 ]. ) , and using, as the classification of the particular column, the classification of a particular word in the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document (See [ 0244 ] -[0248] and [0314] -[0315] . ) . 9 . With regards to claim 6 (similarly claim 17 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document contains duplicates of a particular word (See [ 0340 ] and [0314]. ) ; the method further comprises generating, for each duplicate of the particular word, a distinct respective contextual embedding (See [ 0145 ] and [0243] . ) . 9 . With regards to claim 7 (similarly claim 18 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, wherein said inferring the classifications of the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document that does not contain the table is performed by one selected from the group consisting of a softmax and a neural network containing at most two neural layers (See [0221]) . 9. With regards to claim 8 (similarly claim 19 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, said inferring the classifications of the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document comprises finishing, at a respective finish time, said inferring the classification of each word in the plurality of words (See [0251]) ; the particular word has the earliest finish time of the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document (See [025 0 ]) ; 9 . With regards to claim 9 , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, wherein said inferring the classifications of the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document (See [0221]) comprises: generating a respective word fragment embedding for each fragment of a plurality of fragments of a particular word of the plurality of words, averaging the word fragment embeddings of the plurality of fragments of the particular word (See [ 0066 ]) , and generating an embedding of the particular word based on said averaging the word fragment embeddings of the plurality of fragments of the particular word (See [ 0066 ] and [0083]-[0084] ) . 9 . With regards to claim 10 , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, wherein said inferring the classifications of the plurality of words in the particular portion of the particular document is based on a sequential ordering of the plurality of words (See for example [ 0063 ] and [0068] . ) . 9 . With regards to claim 11 (similarly claim 20 ) , Tomkins disclosed the limitations of, generating a graph that represents the particular document, wherein the graph contains the plurality of edges, the plurality of vertices, and other vertices that represent values in the particular document that are not in the particular portion of the particular document nor in the table in the particular document (See [0071] -[0075] , [0080]-[0082], and [0093]-[0094] .) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4407 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fahd Obeid can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3324 . 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. /MICHAEL JARED WALKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov