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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent Claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception without significantly more.
Independent Claims
As Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Step 1: Are the Claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. See the analysis below.
The Claim recites:
A method comprising:
receiving unstructured data;
persisting the unstructured data as a data object;
extracting a fact from the data object, wherein the fact includes a plurality of components, and wherein the plurality of components include a subject, a predicate and an object;
determining one or more of the plurality of components is not present in a knowledge graph;
generating a first new node, a second new node, and a first new edge from the one or more of the plurality of components not present in the knowledge graph, assigning properties to the first new node, the second new node, and the first new edge;
predicting a second new edge, wherein the second new edge connects one of the first new node or the second new node to an existing node in the knowledge graph;
preparing a graph update, wherein the graph update includes the first new node, the second new node, the first new edge, and the second new edge;
performing a conflict check on the graph update; and
pushing the graph update to the knowledge graph.
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Regarding the non-emphasized limitations:
Step 2A prong 1:
“extracting a fact from the data object, wherein the fact includes a plurality of components, and wherein the plurality of components include a subject, a predicate and an object;
determining one or more of the plurality of components is not present in a knowledge graph;
generating a first new node, a second new node, and a first new edge from the one or more of the plurality of components not present in the knowledge graph, assigning properties to the first new node, the second new node, and the first new edge;
predicting a second new edge, wherein the second new edge connects one of the first new node or the second new node to an existing node in the knowledge graph;
preparing a graph update, wherein the graph update includes the first new node, the second new node, the first new edge, and the second new edge;
performing a conflict check on the graph update; and ” is/are directed to a mental processes group of abstract idea. Mental processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes includes observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
These steps are considered mental processes group of abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2:
Limitations “receiving unstructured data;
persisting the unstructured data as a data object;
pushing the graph update to the knowledge graph.” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? No.
Limitation “receiving unstructured data;
pushing the graph update to the knowledge graph.” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”).
Limitation “persisting the unstructured data as a data object;” was a form of insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by court case cited in 2106.05(d) as evidenced by HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC.
The claim is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As Claim 2, 9 and 16, the Claim recites “wherein the first new node is generated from the subject, the second new node is generated from the object, and the first new edge is generated from the predicate.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “ wherein the first new node is generated from the subject, the second new node is generated from the object, and the first new edge is generated from the predicate” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 3, 10 and 17, the Claim recites “wherein the first new node is generated from the subject, the second new node is generated from the object, and the first new edge is generated from the predicate.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “ wherein the first new node is generated from the subject, the second new node is generated from the object, and the first new edge is generated from the predicate” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 4, 11 and 18, the Claim recites “wherein the properties are from a registered property repository.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the properties are from a registered property repository.” are mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 5, 12 and 19, the Claim recites “wherein the unstructured data is received as a data stream from an event streaming platform.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the properties are from a registered property repository.” are mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 6, 13 and 20, the Claim recites “wherein the knowledge graph is a labelled property graph.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the knowledge graph is a labelled property graph.” are mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 7 and 14, the Claim recites “wherein the knowledge graph is a Resource Description Framework (RDF) graph.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the knowledge graph is a Resource Description Framework (RDF) graph.” are mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christodoulopoulos (U.S. 10,896,222 hereinafter Christodoulopoulos).
As Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos teaches a method comprising:
receiving unstructured data (Christodoulopoulos (col. 11 line 5, fig. 4 item 138), “unstructured text data is received”);
persisting the unstructured data as a data object (Christodoulopoulos (col. 11 line 12-16), “For example, the unstructured text data may be tokenized, which typically involves dividing or splitting the unstructured text into words, with each word typically separated from each other word with a 15 blank or empty space.”, unstructured data is tokenized);
extracting a fact from the data object, wherein the fact includes a plurality of components, and wherein the plurality of components include a subject, a predicate and an object (Christodoulopoulos (col. 11 line 16-22), “The unstructured text data may also be processed to tag parts of speech present in the unstructured text. Tagging of parts of speech may for example involve assigning parts of speech or other NLP features, for example nouns, verbs, adjectives, or finer-grained tags such 20 as noun-plurals or noun-singulars, to each word of the unstructured text.”, each words is assigned as subject, verb (predicate) and object);
determining one or more of the plurality of components is not present in a knowledge graph (Christodoulopoulos (col. 18 line 27-34), “Similarly, if the machine learning system identifies that an existing entity of the knowledge database is involved in a relationship with a new entity, which is not included in the knowledge database, 30 new entity data (and, in examples, new text data associated with the new entity) may be added to the knowledge database, for example corresponding with a new node where the knowledge database is in the form of a graph”, new entity is construed as “not present in a knowledge graph”);
generating a first new node, a second new node (Christodoulopoulos (col. 28 line 16-22), “the knowledge database 226 includes a fact triple including a subject, a predicate and an object. In such cases, the first entity data may represent one of the subject or the object, the subject entity data may represent the other of the subject or the object and the relationship data representative of the relationship may represent the predicate.”), and a first new edge (Christodoupoulos (col. 28 line 12-16), “nodes connected to the second node (corresponding to the subject entity 228a) with respective edges that satisfy the relationship condition may be identified as corresponding to related entities related to the subject entity 228a.”) from the one or more of the plurality of components not present in the knowledge graph (Christodoulopoulos (col. 18 line 27-34), “Similarly, if the machine learning system identifies that an existing entity of the knowledge database is involved in a relationship with a new entity, which is not included in the knowledge database, 30 new entity data (and, in examples, new text data associated with the new entity) may be added to the knowledge database, for example corresponding with a new node where the knowledge database is in the form of a graph”, new entity is construed as “not present in a knowledge graph”), assigning properties to the first new node, the second new node, and the first new edge (Christodoulopoulos (col. 28 line 16-22), “the knowledge database 226 includes a fact triple including a subject, a predicate and an object. In such cases, the first entity data may represent one of the subject (first new node) or the object (second new node), the subject entity data may represent the other of the subject or the object and the relationship data representative of the relationship (the first new edge) may represent the predicate.”);
predicting a second new edge, wherein the second new edge connects one of the first new node or the second new node to an existing node in the knowledge graph (Chrsitodoulopoulos (col. 18 line 23-26), “a new edge may be added to the graph between the nodes corresponding to the entities of the knowledge database that are involved in the new relationship”);
preparing a graph update, wherein the graph update includes the first new node, the second new node, the first new edge, and the second new edge;
performing a conflict check on the graph update (Christodoulopoulos (col. 15 line 35-40, fig. 7), “after the named entity resolution of FIGS. 4 to 6, which may be referred to as output text data, various checks may be performed to verify that the correct parts of the unstructured text have been identified as corresponding to the first and second related entities”); and
pushing the graph update to the knowledge graph (Christodoulopoulos (col. 17 line 5-9, fig. 7), “If it is determined that the output text data does satisfy the checks at blocks 164 and 166 of FIG.”).
As Claim 2, besides Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos teaches wherein the first new node is generated from the subject, the second new node is generated from the object, and the first new edge is generated from the predicate (Christodoulopoulos (col. 28 line 16-22), “the knowledge database 226 includes a fact triple including a subject, a predicate and an object. In such cases, the first entity data may represent one of the subject or the object, the subject entity data may represent the other of the subject or the object and the relationship data representative of the relationship may represent the predicate.”).
As Claim 3, besides Claim 2, Christodoulopoulos teaches wherein the first new edge connects that first new node and the second new node (Christodoupoulos (col. 28 line 12-16), “nodes connected to the second node (corresponding to the subject entity 228a) with respective edges that satisfy the relationship condition may be identified as corresponding to related entities related to the subject entity 228a.”).
As Claim 4, besides Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos teaches wherein the properties are from a registered property repository (Christodoulopoulos (col. 28 line 16-22), “the knowledge database (a registered property repository) 226 includes a fact triple including a subject, a predicate and an object. In such cases, the first entity data may represent one of the subject (first new node) or the object (second new node), the subject entity data may represent the other of the subject or the object and the relationship data representative of the relationship (the first new edge) may represent the predicate.”).
As Claim 5, besides Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos teaches wherein the unstructured data is received as a data stream from an event streaming platform (Christodouloupolos (col. 23 line 13-14), “Feature vectors may be streamed or combined into a matrix that represents a time period of the spoken utterance.”).
As Claim 6, besides Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos teaches wherein the knowledge graph is a labelled property graph (Christodoulopoulos (col. 28 line 16-22), “the knowledge database (a registered property repository) 226 includes a fact triple including a subject, a predicate and an object. In such cases, the first entity data may represent one of the subject (first new node) or the object (second new node), the subject entity data may represent the other of the subject or the object and the relationship data representative of the relationship (the first new edge) may represent the predicate.”).
As Claim 8-13, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1-6, respectively.
As Claim 15-20, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1-6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christodoulopoulos in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2021/0117402 hereinafter Lee).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 1, Christodoulopoulos may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the knowledge graph is a Resource Description Framework (RDF) graph.
Lee teaches:
wherein the knowledge graph is a Resource Description Framework (RDF) graph (Lee (¶0073 last 5 lines), Resource Description Framework (RDF)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify knowledge graph of Christodoulopoulos instead be a RDF graph taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to allow “for updating a server knowledge graph by using a device knowledge graph generated by a device” (Lee (¶0005)).
As Claim 14, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. D’Souza (U.S. 10,002,129) teaches a system for extracting information from unstructured text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147