DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing of 9-29-2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below:
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1-26 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
2A Prong 1:
first generating, an embedding of a first vertex of a first vertex type in a graph, wherein: the first generating is based on a plurality of features of the first vertex of the first vertex type, and the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type has a predefined size that does not depend on the first vertex type; second generating, an embedding of a first edge of a first edge type in the graph, wherein the second generating is based on a plurality of features of the first edge of the first edge type; and third generating, an embedding of a second vertex of a second vertex type, wherein the third generating is based on: the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type and a particular feature of the second vertex of the second vertex type that is not a feature of the first vertex of the first vertex type;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can generate a graph of features).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
by an input neural layer of an artificial neural network,
by the input neural layer of the artificial neural network, by a subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network,
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (MERE INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION USING A GENERIC COMPUTER COMPONENT)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
by an input neural layer of an artificial neural network,
by the input neural layer of the artificial neural network, by a subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network,
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (MERE INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION USING A GENERIC COMPUTER COMPONENT)
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type is based on an embedding of an edge.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type is based on an embedding of an edge. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
2A Prong 1:
fourth generating, an embedding of a second edge of a second edge type, wherein: the second edge of the second edge type connects the first vertex of the first vertex type to the second vertex of the second vertex type;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can generate a graph of features).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
by the subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network,
the fourth generating is based on: the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type, the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type, and a particular feature of the second edge of the second edge type that is not a feature of the first edge of the first edge type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
by the subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network,
the fourth generating is based on: the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type, the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type, and a particular feature of the second edge of the second edge type that is not a feature of the first edge of the first edge type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the artificial neural network is a multibranch neural network that comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of an edge and a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of a vertex. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the artificial neural network is a multibranch neural network that comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of an edge and a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of a vertex. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the input neural layer contains a respective first portion of each neural branch of two neural branches; the subsequent neural layer contains a respective second portion of each neural branch of the two neural branches. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the input neural layer contains a respective first portion of each neural branch of two neural branches; the subsequent neural layer contains a respective second portion of each neural branch of the two neural branches. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the two neural branches consist of an input neural branch and a subsequent neural branch; the input neural branch contains a first portion of the input neural layer and a first portion of the subsequent neural layer; the subsequent neural branch contains a second portion of the input neural layer and a second portion of the subsequent neural layer. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the two neural branches consist of an input neural branch and a subsequent neural branch; the input neural branch contains a first portion of the input neural layer and a first portion of the subsequent neural layer; the subsequent neural branch contains a second portion of the input neural layer and a second portion of the subsequent neural layer. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
performing at least one selected from a group consisting of: a) acceptance, by the first portion of the subsequent neural layer in the input neural branch, output from the second portion of the input neural layer in the subsequent neural branch, and b) acceptance, by the second portion of the subsequent neural layer in the subsequent neural branch, output from the first portion of the input neural layer in the input neural branch. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
performing at least one selected from a group consisting of: a) acceptance, by the first portion of the subsequent neural layer in the input neural branch, output from the second portion of the input neural layer in the subsequent neural branch, and b) acceptance, by the second portion of the subsequent neural layer in the subsequent neural branch, output from the first portion of the input neural layer in the input neural branch. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein: the second generating is based on a subgraph of the graph; a radius of the subgraph of the graph does not exceed a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein: the second generating is based on a subgraph of the graph; a radius of the subgraph of the graph does not exceed a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network does not exceed at least one selected from a group consisting of: three, a radius of the graph, and a diameter of the graph. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network does not exceed at least one selected from a group consisting of: three, a radius of the graph, and a diameter of the graph. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the particular feature is not imputed for the first vertex of the first vertex type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the particular feature is not imputed for the first vertex of the first vertex type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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. Claims 7 and 17 also would need to overcome 101 rejection.
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) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortunato et al. (“Fortunato” 20250181803 A1) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee” 20130246731 A1) and Sun et al. (“Sun” 20240422069 A1).
Claim 1: Fortunato discloses a method comprising: first generating, by an input neural layer of an artificial neural network, an embedding of a first vertex of a first vertex type in a graph, wherein (Paragraph 123; GNN provides node embedding): the first generating is based on a plurality of features of the first vertex of the first vertex type (Paragraph 123; simulation processes node features),
second generating, by the input neural layer of the artificial neural network, an embedding of a first edge of a first edge type in the graph, wherein the second generating is based on a plurality of features of the first edge of the first edge type (Paragraphs 104-107, Figure 2c; edges produced ); and third generating, by a subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network, an embedding of a second vertex of a second vertex type, wherein the third generating is based on: the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type and (Paragraph 104-107; Figure 2c; secondary nodes provided based on first (11f)); wherein the method is performed by one or more computers (Paragraphs 27-28; computer implemented).
Fortunato also may not explicitly disclose and the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type has a predefined size that does not depend on the first vertex type;
Lee is provided because it discloses a graph structure which provides fixed size (predefined) vertex (Lee: Paragraphs 23 and 25 (fixed size does not require dependency)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide fixed sizes of nodes in the buildout of Fortunato. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality in order to reduce overhead and latency.
Fortunato also may not explicitly disclose a particular feature of the second vertex of the second vertex type that is not a feature of the first vertex of the first vertex type. Sun is provided because it discloses a heterogenous graph structure which provides embedding of nodes(subgraph) that may contain separate features (Sun: Figure 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 and 67 (subgraphs of different types)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide different features in the buildout of Fortunato. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality to allow enhanced learning by avoiding isolation while including different feature types.
Claim 2: Fortunato, Lee and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1 wherein the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type is based on an embedding of an edge (Fortunato: Paragraph 104 and Figure 2c and Sun: Figure 6: Edges).
Claim 3: Fortunato, Lee and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1 further comprising fourth generating, by the subsequent neural layer of the artificial neural network, an embedding of a second edge of a second edge type, wherein: the second edge of the second edge type connects the first vertex of the first vertex type to the second vertex of the second vertex type; the fourth generating is based on: the embedding of the first vertex of the first vertex type, the embedding of the second vertex of the second vertex type, and a particular feature of the second edge of the second edge type that is not a feature of the first edge of the first edge type (Fortunato: Paragraph 104-107; buildout of nodes and Sun: Figure 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 and 67 (subgraphs of different types)).
Claim 8: Fortunato, Lee and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1 wherein: the second generating is based on a subgraph of the graph; a radius of the subgraph of the graph does not exceed a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network (Sun: Figure 2; sub-graph is less than the graph network).
Claim 9: Fortunato, Lee and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1 wherein a count of neural layers in the artificial neural network does not exceed at least one selected from a group consisting of: three, a radius of the graph, and a diameter of the graph (Sun: Figure 2; sub-graph is less than the graph network).
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Fortunato: Paragraphs 27 and 149).
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortunato et al. (“Fortunato” 20250181803 A1) and Sun et al. (“Sun” 20240422069 A1) in further view of Miao et al. (“Miao” 20250013881 A1).
Claim 4: Fortunato and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1, however may not explicitly disclose wherein the artificial neural network is a multibranch neural network that comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of an edge and a neural branch that does not accept a feature vector that contains a feature of a vertex.
Miao is provided because it discloses a graph neural network and further an ability to accept components (nodes/vertex/edges) during an iteration (Miao: Paragraphs 13 (component) 76-80 and 27 (components include architecture (node/edges)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide functionality for accepting components in the buildout of Fortunato. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to optimize the embedding.
Claim 5: Fortunato and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein: the input neural layer contains a respective first portion of each neural branch of two neural branches; the subsequent neural layer contains a respective second portion of each neural branch of the two neural branches.
Miao is provided because it discloses a graph neural network and further provides a layout of the input layer and subsequent layers (Miao: Figure 5:520; layer and subsequent layer in graph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide a desired layout in the buildout of Fortunato. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to optimize the architecture.
Claim 6: Fortunato, Sun and Miao disclose a method of Claim 5, however may not explicitly disclose wherein: the two neural branches consist of an input neural branch and a subsequent neural branch; the input neural branch contains a first portion of the input neural layer and a first portion of the subsequent neural layer; the subsequent neural branch contains a second portion of the input neural layer and a second portion of the subsequent neural layer (Miao: Figure 5:520; layer and subsequent layer in graph).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortunato et al. (“Fortunato” 20250181803 A1) and Sun et al. (“Sun” 20240422069 A1) in further view of Pellegrini (20210118576 A1).
Claim 10: Fortunato and Sun disclose a method of Claim 1 but may not explicitly disclose wherein the particular feature is not imputed for the first vertex of the first vertex type.
Pellegrini provides a graph functionality and further allows the method to disregard missing values (not imputing) (Paragraph 30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide functionality for not imputing in the buildout of Fortunato. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to avoid introducing bias or overfitting.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Luo et al. (“Luo” 20240330679 A1) [0002]
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 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 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
6-7-2026
Prosecution Insights