DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: Original claims filed 05/10/23. This action is made non-final.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by anticipated by Lewis (US 20230350931).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a method comprising:
presenting a user interface (see paragraph 0043, a user interface configured for receiving one or more entity concepts) the user interface including:
a service receiver input element presenting a selected service receiver (see FIG. 1a, receiving and generated search query);
a service identifier input element (see FIG. 1a, receiving search equerry based on first set of entities); and
a graph presentation area (see FIG. 1, a graph of entities of interest based on the search query and expanded search query);
executing a first knowledge graph database query to a knowledge graph database based on the selected service receiver (see FIG. 1a, a search query based on a first set of entities);
populating the service identifier input element with a set of service identifiers based on results of the first knowledge graph database query (see FIG. 5a, wherein the search query results in the search query module);
receiving a selection of a service identifier from the service receiver input element that was populated (see FIG. 5a, and filter engine);
executing a second knowledge graph database query using a combination of the selected service receiver and the service identifier (see FIG. 5a, a search query expansion engine based on additional concepts); and
generating, in the graph presentation area an interactive graph based on tuple results of the second knowledge graph database query (see FIG. 5a, the relationship and document extraction engine providing the results for the search engine), the interactive graph including :
representations of entities in the tuple results including the selected service receiver and the service identifier (see the filter engine and KG results of the search query back to the user); and
links connecting the representations of entities (see FIG, 5a, the KG results bac to the user).
Regarding claim 2, Lewis discloses wherein the links connecting the representation of entities includes a link between a representation of the selected service receiver and a representation of the service identifier, the link labeled with a relationship identifier based on the tuple results (see FIG. 1e wherein the links of each of the relationship are presented and based on the graph results).
Regarding claim 4, Lewis discloses wherein the representations of entities include a representation of a service provider and wherein the links connecting the representation of entities includes a link between the representation of the selected service receiver and the representation of a service provider, the link labeled with a relationship identifier based on the tuple results (The corpus of text includes a plurality of entity types of interest in which each entity type has a corresponding set of entities that may be identified and/or extracted from the corpus of text. When these entities are identified/extracted from a portion of text, in cases from a corpus of text that may lack metadata and/or cannot readily be indexed or mapped onto standard database fields, and labelled to be a particular entity type of interest, then these entities may be used in many applications such as knowledge bases, literature searches, entity-entity knowledge graphs, relationship extraction, machine learning techniques and models, and other processes useful, see paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 10, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 1 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 11, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 2 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 13, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 4 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 1 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 2 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Hirmer (US 20200081931).
Regarding claim 3, Lewis does not disclose wherein the representation of the selected service receiver is depicted as a first type of icon and the representation of the service identifier is depicted as a second type of icon.
However, Hirmer discloses wherein the digital asset management module/logic through access of the knowledge graph decides which multimedia content icons 630 and associated keyword tags 632 to display and in which order the multimedia content icons 630 and associated keyword tags 632 are displayed (see paragraph 0070).
The combination of Lewis and Hirmer would have resulted in the knowledge graph teachings of Lewis to be combined with Hirmer’s teachings of utilizing icons to represent the results. One would have been motivated to have combined the teachings as a user of Hirmer is already disclosing results and presenting them in an icon format would have been a more efficient way of showing said results. As such, the combination of references would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 3 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
9. Claim 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Calvanese Strinati (US 20160274938).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the interactive graph is presented as a hierarchical graph with the representation of the selected service receiver at a first level, the representation of the service provider at a second level, and component service providers at a third level.
However, Calvanese Strinati discloses wherein the classifying step being performed by traversing an oriented graph consisting of decision nodes, each having successor nodes in the graph and terminal nodes, each assigned to one of the classes of said group, the decision nodes being distributed into at least three hierarchical levels, themselves distributed into at least three subsets of levels, the traversal of the graph taking place from an initial decision node to reach a terminal node, and comprising: during the transit through a decision node of a first subset of levels, the verification of a feasibility criterion for the off-loading of the task for execution by a third-party equipment, during the transit through a decision node of a second subset of levels, the verification of a criticality criterion for the execution of the task, and during the transit through a decision node of a third subset of levels, the verification of an opportunity criterion for the execution of the task (see paragraphs 0015-0017).
The combination of Lewis and Calvanese Strinati would have resulted in the knowledge graph teachings of Lewis to be combined with Calvanese Strinati’s teachings of utilizing hierarchical levels to represent the results. One would have been motivated to have combined the teachings as a user of Hirmer is already disclosing results and presenting them in a hierarchical level format format would have been a more efficient way of showing said results. As such, the combination of references would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, the subject matter is substantially similar to claim 5 and as such the same rationale of rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3780. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7-2, 7-10 (PST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bechtold, Michelle T. can be reached on (571) 431-0762. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID E CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148