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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/09/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 recite the limitation “generating a graph representing inter-node communication using information on communication between nodes on a network,” and it is unclear what is meant by using information on communication between nodes on a network. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite as the claims fail to clearly and distinctly define what is meant by using information on communication between nodes on a network. Claims 2-6 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the generating a graph excluding nodes whose number of adjacent nodes is smaller than a predetermined threshold,” and it is unclear whether this limitation discloses generating a graph by excluding nodes whose number of adjacent nodes is smaller than a predetermined threshold or if it is to further limit a previously recited limitation in claim 1 as there is no generating of a graph excluding nodes within claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define whether the claim limitation is meant to further limit a previously recited limitation of claim 1 based on the “wherein generating” language within the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the selecting a predetermined number of nodes in descending order of the number of adjacent nodes,” and it is unclear whether this limitation discloses selecting a predetermined number of nodes in descending order of the number of adjacent nodes when estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes or if it is to further limit a previously recited limitation in claim 1 as there is no selecting a predetermined number of nodes disclosed within claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define whether the claim limitation is meant to further limit a previously recited limitation of claim 1 based on the “wherein selecting” language within the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the selecting a node with a predetermined color in accordance with a coloring algorithm for applying colors to all nodes such that adjacent nodes have different colors,” and it is unclear whether this limitation discloses selecting a node with a predetermined color in accordance with a coloring algorithm for applying colors to all nodes such that adjacent nodes have different colors when estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes or if it is to further limit a previously recited limitation in claim 1 as there is no selecting a node with a predetermined color disclosed within claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define whether the claim limitation is meant to further limit a previously recited limitation of claim 1 based on the “wherein selecting” language within the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by combining feature values calculated for all selected nodes at a shortest distance from the node,” and it is unclear whether this limitation discloses estimating an additional/another feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by combining feature values calculated for all selected nodes at a shortest distance from the node after estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes based on combining feature values calculated for sequentially adjacent nodes in the graph so as to further limit the estimating a feature value limitation recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define whether the claim limitation is meant to further limit the recited “estimating a feature value” limitation of claim 1 based on the “wherein estimating” language within the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “estimating a feature value of a node other than the selected nodes by an average or Hadamard product for feature value vectors of a plurality of nodes,” and it is unclear whether this limitation discloses estimating an additional/another feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by determining/calculating an average or Hadamard product for feature value vectors of a plurality of nodes after estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes based on combining feature values calculated for sequentially adjacent nodes in the graph so as to further limit the estimating a feature value limitation recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define whether the claim limitation is meant to further limit the recited “estimating a feature value” limitation of claim 1 based on the “wherein estimating” language within the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the selected nodes" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites selecting a node. Claims 2-6 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the selecting a predetermined number of nodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not recite a selection of a predetermined number of nodes.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the number of adjacent nodes" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites sequentially adjacent nodes not a number of adjacent nodes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the selected nodes" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites selecting a node.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the selected nodes" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites selecting a node.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, independent claims 1, 7 and 8 recite a device, a method, and a computer-readable recording medium, respectively and are therefore statutory classes of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim(s) recite(s):
generating a graph;
selecting a node satisfying a predetermined condition among nodes in the generated graph;
calculating a feature value in the graph for the selected node by a predetermined learning method; and
estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by combining feature values calculated for sequentially adjacent nodes in the graph.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that could be performed mentally. That is, other than reciting a device, a memory, a processor, and a computer-readable recording medium to perform the generating, selecting, calculating, and estimating steps, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed mentally or by a human using pen and paper. For example, a user can mentally/with pen and paper generate a graph, mentally/with pen and paper select a node satisfying a predetermined condition among nodes in the generated graph; mentally/with pen and paper calculate a feature value in the graph for the selected node by a predetermined learning method; and mentally/with pen and paper estimate a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by combining feature values calculated for sequentially adjacent nodes in the graph. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of a device, a memory, a processor, and a computer-readable recording medium. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a device, a memory, a processor, and a computer-readable recording medium amount 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.
The additional claim elements are: a graph representing inter-node communication using information on communication between nodes on a network. This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity such as i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) . See MPEP 2106.05(a). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites wherein the generating a graph excluding nodes whose number of adjacent nodes is smaller than a predetermined threshold. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited, thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 3 recites wherein the selecting a predetermined number of nodes in descending order of the number of adjacent nodes. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited, thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 4 recites wherein the selecting a node with a predetermined color in accordance with a coloring algorithm for applying colors to all nodes such that adjacent nodes have different colors. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited, thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 5 recites wherein the estimating a feature value for a node other than the selected nodes by combining feature values calculated for all selected nodes at a shortest distance from the node. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited, thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 6 recites wherein the estimating a feature value of a node other than the selected nodes by an average or Hadamard product for feature value vectors of a plurality of nodes. There are no additional elements recited, thus, the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laszlo (US 11,568,201): processing a synaptic resolution image of the brain of a biological organism to generate a synaptic connectivity graph, and implementing an artificial neural network having an architecture specified by the synaptic connectivity graph;
Renedo (US 11,327,721): defining a module that exports a function with at least a first sub-function and a second sub-function; defining a version of an object including a call for the function to take as an argument at least a first node linked to the first sub-function and a second node linked to the second sub-function; and detecting a dependency between the first node and the second node;
Wang (US 2016/0092774): determining and localizing anomalous behavior of an entity or a community of entities via generating a community model using aggregate community feature values computed from a community graph having nodes that each represent a partition of a respective user graph within one of multiple time intervals, the community graph having edges between nodes that represent matching partitions of respective user graphs across adjacent time intervals, each user graph having nodes that represent distinct users and having edges that represent relationships between users from user behavior of the users in a particular time interval; determining predicted community feature values for the community, the predicted community feature values being generated by the community model; and determining that the predicted community feature values are consistent with the observed community feature values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights