DETAILED 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 made non-final.
This action is in response to the application and claims filed September 7, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending in the case and have been examined. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on September 9, 2022. The examiner acknowledges that a certified copy of Chinese Patent Application No. CN202211105858.5 has been retrieved, as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The examiner notes that a translation of Chinese Patent Application No. CN202211105858.5does not appear to have been furnished to-date.
Although a certified copy of the foreign priority application was retrieved, a translation of said application has not yet been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Applicant is reminded of requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)-(4) Claim for foreign priority:
“(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate” (emphasis added).
Since an English language translation of Application No. CN202211105858.5 has not been made of record to-date, the Examiner notes that prior art references with a filing date or a publication date prior to the instant Application’s filing date of September 7, 2023 are considered applicable prior art references.
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.
v To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1: Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A: Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2104.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106). To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1: Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A: Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2104.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (a process), Claim 9 is directed to a apparatus comprising a memory and a processor (a machine), and Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (a manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process, machine or manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“obtaining ontology definition data of a knowledge graph, wherein the ontology definition data comprises node definition data of a plurality of nodes, the node definition data comprises a node attribute value type, the node attribute value type is a basic type, a standard type, or a concept type, the basic type is used to represent a data type of an attribute value, the standard type is used to represent a fixed format of the attribute value, and the concept type is used to represent a multi-level structure of the attribute value” (e.g. a human can write down rules for organizing information by breaking the information into different objects, data fields, and attribute types, and defining how those fields should be categorized such as by data type, fixed format, or hierarchy)
“processing instance data based on the ontology definition data to obtain the knowledge graph that comprises a node instance of a standard type attribute value and/or a concept type attribute value” (e.g. a human can review example information, apply the previously written rules, break the information into the proper objects and fields, and record the organized information under the correct labels)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 2 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the standard type is defined based on the basic type and a format description, and the concept type is defined based on the basic type and a level description” (e.g. a human can write down predefined rules for sorting information and then sort the information according to those rules)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 3 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the level description comprises a level quantity, a level order, and a value range of each level” (e.g. a human can write down how many category levels exist, the order of those levels, and what choices are allowed at each level)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 4 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the node definition data further comprises a node type, the node type is an entity node, an event node, or a concept node, the entity node corresponds to an objectively existing thing, the event node corresponds to an event, and the concept node corresponds to abstract knowledge” (e.g. a human can label information as referring to a real world thing, an event, or an idea)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 5 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein a node whose node type is the event node comprises a time attribute and two or more object attributes, the object attribute comprises participant information of an event, and an attribute value type of the object attribute is represented by using definition data of the entity node in the ontology definition data” (e.g. a human can record an event by writing when it occurred and who or what participated in it)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 6 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the processing instance data based on the ontology definition data comprises: determining a node instance corresponding to a node whose node type is an entity node and/or an event node from the instance data based on the node definition data in the ontology definition data” (e.g. a human can review information and decide which real world item or event information referred to based on previously written categories)
“a node instance corresponding to a node whose node type is a concept node has a mapping relationship with an element of a value range in the level description” (e.g. a human can match an idea or category to one of the loud choices in a previously written category list)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 7 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the processing instance data based on the ontology definition data further comprises: processing an attribute value and/or a node name of a node instance by using a chain pointer operator, and further establishing an edge instance between node instances” (e.g. a human can compare a name or attribute value to another recorded information and draw a relationship when they match or correspond)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 8 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “knowledge graph”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the ontology definition data further comprises edge definition data of an edge between nodes, and the edge instance is instance data corresponding to an edge in the ontology definition data” (e.g. a human can write down allowed relationship types and then record a specific relationship that fits one of those types)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, which recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al (US 11321615B1, referred to as Genkin), in view of Jain et al. (US 20090228507 A1, referred to as Jain).
Regarding claim 1, Genkin teaches, a knowledge graph construction method, comprising:
obtaining ontology definition data of a knowledge graph (Col. 15, lines 1-9: Describes receiving domain specific schema data structures, it defines a “domain schema” as a data structure including definition of domain entity types, domain attribute types, and domain relation types. The domain schema may be used as a scaffold/template for producing a KG.), wherein the ontology definition data comprises node definition data of a plurality of nodes (Co. 15, lines 17-36, and FIG. 5, Col. 23, lines 6-21: Describes that the ontology definition data comprises node definition data of a plurality of nodes since the domain schema defines domain entity types, such as “person”, and ‘organization”, which correspond to node/entity types in the knowledge graph.), the node definition data comprises a node attribute value type (Col. 15, lines 27-46, and Col. 23 lines 15-34: Describes that the node definition data comprises node attribute data/type information because its domain schema includes definition of domain attribute types associated with domain entity types. It uses “Birthdate”, domain attribute type, of data type, ”string” attributed to a “person” domain entity type.), processing instance data based on the ontology definition data (Col. 16 lines 1-13: Describes processing instance data based on the ontology definition data because it uses ML models to fetch mentions from documents/data sources, including entity mentions, attribute mentions, and relation mentions corresponding to the domain entity types, domain attribute types, and domain relation types defined by the schema.)
Although Genkin teaches, it does not teach, by itself, the node attribute value type is a basic type, a standard type, or a concept type, the basic type is used to represent a data type of an attribute value, the standard type is used to represent a fixed format of the attribute value, and the concept type is used to represent a multi-level structure of the attribute value and processing instance data based on the ontology definition data to obtain the knowledge graph that comprises a node instance of a standard type attribute value and/or a concept type attribute value.
Jian teaches, the node attribute value type is a basic type, a standard type, or a concept type, the basic type is used to represent a data type of an attribute value, the standard type is used to represent a fixed format of the attribute value ([0027-0030], and [0033-0036]: Describes That the node attribute value type is a basic type or a standard type. In particular it teaches that an ontology comprising object types and object property types, wherein property types may have components and a base type and may comprise string, date, number, or composite types.; [0042-0047]: Describes a basic type used to represent a data type of an attribute value and teaches that property types may include parser definitions and validators, including regular expressions, fixed value sets, encode modules, wherein the validator must be satisfied before modified input data is stored in the associated object property. A validator comprising irregular expression matching digits 0-9 for a number property and a fixed set of valid two letter postal abbreviations for U.S. state property. This corresponds to a standard type use to represent a fixed format of the tribute value. The examiner notes that the rejection relies on Jain’s teaching of the basic type and standard type alternatives, and does not rely on Jane for the concept type alternative as that is used in the or language.), and the concept type is used to represent a multi-level structure of the attribute value; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined Genkins knowledge graph construction with Jains ontology types. Doing so would have enabled the system to more efficiently integrate heterogenous extracted attribute data into a consistent, canonical ontology based representation despite variations in attribute value format or syntax.
Genkin in view of Jain teaches, to obtain the knowledge graph that comprises a node instance of a standard type attribute value and/or a concept type attribute value (Genkin Col 22 lines 30-67 cont. Col 23 lines 1-13: Describes obtaining a knowledge graph comprising node/entity instances and associated attributes since the KG generator integrates domain entities, domain attributes, and domain relations into KG 160A based on the predefined domain schema.; Jain [0042-46] is relied upon for teaching that the associated attribute property value is a standard type value by using parser definitions and validators, including regular expressions and fixed value sets, to require input data to conform to a specified format.).
Regarding claim 4, Genkin in view of Jain teaches, the method according to claim 1
Genkin further teaches, wherein the node definition data further comprises a node type, the node type is an entity node, an event node, or a concept node, the entity node corresponds to an objectively existing thing, the event node corresponds to an event, and the concept node corresponds to abstract knowledge (Table 1, Fig. 3, and Col. 15, lines 1-16: Describes that the domain schema includes definitions of domain entity types. It uses entity types such as “person” and “organization” where a unique identifier of a person entity type may be a string rep[resenting the name of an actual person and a unique identifier of an ”organization” entity type may be a string representing the name of a company. Corresponding to a node type being an entity node which corresponds to an objectively existing thing.).
Regarding claims 9, and 10 which recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and further recite an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Genkin Col. 9 lines 8-15, Col 10 lines 55-67, cont. Col 11. Lines 1-4: Describes a system and computer components to execute instructions to perform the method steps within.) to perform the method steps of claim 1, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons as described in this office action.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al (US 11321615B1, referred to as Genkin), in view of Jain et al. (US 20090228507 A1, referred to as Jain), in view of Eder et al. (US 20120158633A1, referred to as Eder).
Regarding claim 2, Genkin in view of Jain teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the standard type is defined based on the basic type and a format description (Jain 0027-0030, [0036-0046]: Describes ontology property types having a base type and components, where a property type may comprise string, date, number, or composite types. Corresponding to a basic type. It also describes parser definitions, regular expression symbology, validators, fixed values, and display formats for property types corresponding to a format description. )
Although Genkin in view of Jian teaches wherein the standard type is defined based on the basic type and a format description. It does not teach and the concept type is defined based on the basic type and a level description.
Eder teaches and the concept type is defined based on the basic type and a level description( Tables 1, 2, 3, [0004-0006], and [0013-0014]: Describes organizing data using domains divided into hierarchies or groups, where each member of a hierarchy/group is an entity type. It shows ordered hierarchy examples, including political, habitat, market, organization, biology, organism, geology, physics, space, and tangible goods hierarchies. The table identify members form “lowest level to highest for hierarchies” which corresponds to level description.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined Genkin in view of Jain’s schema based knowledge graph construction system with Eder’s hierarchical domain/entity type descriptions. Doing so would improve integration and analysis of heterogenous domain data within the knowledge graph.
Regrading claim 3, Genkin in view of Jain, in view of Eder teaches, the method according to claim 2, wherein the level description comprises a level quantity, a level order, and a value range of each level (Eder Tables 1, 2, 3, [0004-0006], and [0013-0014]: Describes domain hierarchies having listed hierarchy members ordered from “lowest level to highest for hierarchies”. It teaches a political hierarchy having the ordered members voter, precinct, caucus, city, county, sate/province, regional national, multinational, and global, and an organization hierarchy having the ordered members team, group, department, division, company, and organization. It further describes additional ordered hierarchies, including a biology hierarchy having species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. Showing a level quantity as each hierarchy includes a specified number of levels, a level order because the hierarchy members are ordered from lowest level to highest level, and a value range of each level because the hierarchy defines allowable entity type values/members for the respective levels.).
Regrading claim 6, Genkin in view of Jain, in view of Eder teaches, the method according to claim 3, wherein the processing instance data based on the ontology definition data comprises: determining a node instance corresponding to a node whose node type is an entity node and/or an event node from the instance data based on the node definition data in the ontology definition data (Genkin Table 1, Col. 21 lines 56-67 cont. Col 22, lines 1-17: Describes receiving a domain specific schema including domain entity types, fetching mentions from documents/data sources, extracting at least one domain entity corresponding to the schema defined domain entity types, and integrating the extracted domain entity into a KG based on the schema. It also gives the specific examples of receiving multiple mentions of a real world person, and extracting a single domain entity representing that real world person.); and a node instance corresponding to a node whose node type is a concept node has a mapping relationship with an element of a value range in the level description (Eder[0003-0006], [0013], and Table 1: Describes Domain hierarchies having ordered hierarchy members, Such as political hierarchy members including voter, precinct, city, county, sate/province/, regional, national, multinational, and global, And organization hierarchy members including team, group, department, division, company, and organization. It further teaches that actual entities/items are associated with such hierarchy/entity elements, which may be an item within the organism entity type, voter entity type, team entity, nuclear family entity, extended family entity, and household entity. This corresponds to mapping a node or entity instance to an element of the value range of the hierarchy level description.).
Regrading claim 7, Genkin in view of Jain, in view of Eder teaches, the method according to claim 6, wherein the processing instance data based on the ontology definition data further comprises: processing an attribute value and/or a node name of a node instance by using a chain pointer operator, and further establishing an edge instance between node instances (Genkin Col. 21 lines6-55, and Col. 22 lines 9-54: Describes processing entity mentions having name attributes, attribute mentions, and relation mentions from documents/data sources, and applying entity resolution, attribute resolution, and relation resolution to the mentions. It resolves a tribute mentions, such as multiple birth date formats, into a common representative domain attribute, and resolving relation mentions such as “works for” to produce a domain relation between a real world person entity and a real world organization entity. It further describes integrating the extracted domain entities, domain attributes, and domain relations into the knowledge graph based on the domain schema. Corresponding to processing attribute values and/or node name information of node incidences and establishing edge/relationship instances between node instances.).
Regrading claim 8, Genkin in view of Jain, in view of Eder teaches, the method according to claim 7, wherein the ontology definition data further comprises edge definition data of an edge between nodes, and the edge instance is instance data corresponding to an edge in the ontology definition data (Genkin Fig. 3, Table 1, and Col 22, lines 9-67 cont. Col. 23 lines 1-5: Describes that the domain schema includes domain relation types defining relations between domain entity types, such as a role of a person in an organization or whether a person is a shareholder of an organization. It shows in Fig. 3 the schema relationship type definitions, including “works for”, “spouse”, and “shareholder” between entity types. Describing edge definition data of edges between nodes. It extracts domain relation instances corresponding to those schema defined relation types, such as extracting a “works for” domain relation defining a current working relation between a real world person entity and a real world organization entity, and integrating the extracted domain relations into the knowledge graph based on the domain schema. Corresponding to an edge instance that is instance data corresponding to an edge/relation in the ontology definition data.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al (US 11321615B1, referred to as Genkin), in view of Jain et al. (US 20090228507 A1, referred to as Jain), in view of Goldman et al. (*US 8739016 B1, referred to as Goldman).
Regarding claim 5, Genkin in view of Jain teaches, the method according to claim 4.
Although they teach the method according to claim 4, they do not teach wherein a node whose node type is the event node comprises a time attribute and two or more object attributes, the object attribute comprises participant information of an event, and an attribute value type of the object attribute is represented by using definition data of the entity node in the ontology definition data.
Goldman teaches wherein a node whose node type is the event node comprises a time attribute and two or more object attributes, the object attribute comprises participant information of an event, and an attribute value type of the object attribute is represented by using definition data of the entity node in the ontology definition data (Col. 18 lines 4-30: Describes an ontology/social Graph that identifies connectivity between entities including people, organizations, events, and things. The ontology data model associated with events comprising an event entity type, person entity type, award entity type, creative work entity type, place entity type, cultural event entity type, graduation ceremony event entity type, and company entity type. The attributes may be associated with a dimension of time and that a date of a single event may be captured as an entity or relationship attribute. The event relationship types connecting event entities to other defined entity types, including attendee and performer relationships connecting a person entity type to a cultural event entity type, and a sponsor relationship connecting a company entity type to the cultural event entity type. This corresponds to an event node having a time/date attribute in multiple object/participant attributes, where the participant attribute values are represented using defined entity node types such as person and company).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined Genkin in view of Jain’s schema based knowledge graph construction system with Goldman’s Ontology models entity connections. Doing so would Improve the system’s ability to determine, interpret, and represent relationships among entities in the knowledge graph allowing for faster graph traversal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for additional art including:
US 20140351261 A1: representing enterprise data in a knowledge graph
US 10157226 B1: generate a knowledge graph
US 20180232443 A1: ontology defined property ranges
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD T RODEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/D.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights