The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 8 August 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL . Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable. Claims 10-16, 18-20 are objected to. There is no art rejection for claims 1-20 . Claim Objections Claim 10-16 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 10-13, 15-16 are apparatus claims depending on independent method claim 1 . This appeared to be typos. They are construed to be dependent on independent apparatus claim 9. Likewise, claim 14 is construed to be dependent on claim 13. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18-20 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 18-20 are product claims depending on independent method claim 1. This appeared to be typos. They are construed to be dependent on independent product claim 17. Likewise. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Judicial Exception Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. (Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 9 / 17, the claim recites a process / machine / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories. 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ applying a logical inference model to at least one or more portions of the unstructured data that applies an induction heuristic model to generate a meaning to the at least one or more portions of the unstructured data ” (mental process), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “applying ”, “generate a meaning” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing data to generate meaning based on certain model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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 claim recites an abstract idea. 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements (like computer, processor, memory storing instruction to be executed by process, computer readable storage medium storing instruction to be executed by computer, etc. ) ( merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))) ; (b) “ receiving unstructured data, wherein the unstructured data includes text ” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g ). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). F or ( b) these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g) . The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, 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. 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “ receiving unstructured data, wherein the unstructured data includes text ”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim is not patent eligible. (Dependent claims) Claims 2-8 / 9-16 / 18-20 are dependent on claim 1 / 9 / 17 and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 9 / 17. Therefore, claims 2-8 / 9-16 / 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas. With regards to claim 2 / 10 / 18 , the claim recites further limitation of “applying contextual analysis and phrase recognition to the at least one or more portions of the unstructured data; and based on the contextual analysis and the phrase recognition, applying the logical inference model that combines the induction heuristic model with at least one deductive technique to generate the meaning to the at least one or more portions of the unstructured data, wherein the logical inference model mimics human logical reasoning applied to the unstructured data ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 3 / 11 / 19 , the claim recites further limitation of “assigning a portion of the text within the unstructured data to a labelled section and attaching the labelled section to a report node within a knowledge graph; breaking the portion of the text into one or more sentences and attaching the one or more sentences to a section node within the knowledge graph; and breaking the one or more sentences into one or more tokens and attaching the one or more tokens to a sentence node within the knowledge graph; wherein the report node, the section node, and the sentence node preserves ordered position within the knowledge graph ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 4 / 12 / 20 , the claim recites further limitation of “determining one or more tokens from the text of the unstructured data; recognizing compound tokens from among unitary tokens within the one or more tokens by cross referencing ontological static data in memory; applying a unitary token archetype association to portions of the unstructured data for unitary tokens; and applying a compound archetype association to the portions of the unstructured data for compound tokens ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 5 / 13 , the claim recites further limitation of “connecting a plurality of archetype associations together based on a microgrammatical analysis of the text, wherein the microgrammatical analysis of the text is based on one or more of a phrase or sentence proximity; and building an ephemeral knowledge graph of the unstructured data based on the connection of the plurality of archetype associations ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 6 / 14 , the claim recites further limitation of “wherein one or more archetypes within the plurality of archetype associations are inferred by the logical inference model ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 7 / 15 , the claim recites further limitation of “creating ontological logic nodes based on the unstructured data; building an ephemeral logics graph based on the ontological logic nodes; and applying the logical inference model to solve syllogisms applied to the text by setting inclusion or exclusion properties on archetypal relationships to the ontological logic nodes ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 8 / 16 , the claim recites further limitation of “determining valid pathways through a static knowledge graph based on a comparison between nodes of an ephemeral knowledge graph and summary graphs of a report; performing requirement logics operations on returned transversal pathways; and recursively run a check for an existence of a coded conclusion for the returned transversal pathways until a coded conclusion has been reached or no transversal pathway matches results of the logics operations; and assign a code to a portion of the text if the coded conclusion has been reached ”, which encompasses further steps for data analysis to generate meaning, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that can be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence is directed to an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 ( Fed.Cir . 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-20. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 8 August 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record. Regarding the amended independent claim 1, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the following specific elements, in combination with the other elements cited, which is not found in the prior art of record: “… applying a logical inference model to at least one or more portions of the unstructured data that applies an induction heuristic model to generate a meaning to the at least one or more portions of the unstructured data ” in combination with other limitations in the claim. None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 9 and 17. Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed. The followings are references close to the invention claimed: Shmueli et al., US-PATENT NO.9672207B2 [hereafter Shmueli ] teaches using ontology model to identify items with multiple meanings. However Shmueli does not teach the specific claimed process of meaning extraction via linking the induction heuristic directly to the inference model's execution on unstructured data portions. Tzur et al., US-PATENT NO.10430723B2 [hereafter Tzur ] teaches logic inference on storage data. However Tzur does not teach the specific claimed process of meaning extraction via linking the induction heuristic directly to the inference model's execution on unstructured data portions. Banerjee et al., US-PATENT NO.11281980B2 [hereafter Banerjee] teaches rule based reasoning on real time data from IoT. However Banerjee does not teach the specific claimed process of meaning extraction via linking the induction heuristic directly to the inference model's execution on unstructured data portions. Hassad , et al., “A foundation for inductive reasoning in harnessing the potential of big data”, Statistics education research journal 19(1), 238-258 , Feb. 2020 [hereafter Hassad ] teaches inductive reasoning on big data. However Hassad does not teach the specific claimed process of meaning extraction via linking the induction heuristic directly to the inference model's execution on unstructured data portions. Muller, et al., “Inducing content based user models with inductive logic programming techniques”, Worship on machine learning for user modeling, 2001 [ hereafter Muller] teaches inductive reasoning based on user model. However Muller does not teach the specific claimed process of meaning extraction via linking the induction heuristic directly to the inference model's execution on unstructured data portions. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589. 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. /TSU-CHANG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128