DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are considered in this Office 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 12/29/2023 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement IS being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation of “initializing profile-related information (a profiled edge list L and a profiled path P) added to attribute information of each of vertices constituting the graph;”. This is ambiguous, as it is unclear if it is required that L and P are required and not, and thus the claim is indefinite. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent, and thus the dependents are similarly rejected. For examination purposes, both will be required as part of the limitations.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitations to initializing profile-related information (a profiled edge list L and a profiled path P) added to attribute information of each of vertices constituting the graph (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an Observation, a Mental Process), performing a topological sort on the vertices, and searching for a corresponding vertex in order of the topological sort (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process), deriving profile-related information of the corresponding vertex on the basis of: profile-related information of a predecessor vertex of the corresponding vertex in the order of the topological sort (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process), and incoming edge information of the corresponding vertex (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process), updating the attribute information of the corresponding vertex with the derived profile-related information (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process), and when all edges different from each other and constituting the graph have been searched, outputting path information on a path from a starting point of the graph to the corresponding vertex, based on the updated attribute information (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of evaluating data using a comparison, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor and apparatus, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of searching a graph and determining a path, which is a Mental Process. 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, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The apparatus and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[59] Referring to FIG. 6, the graph search apparatus 600 according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an input unit 610, an output unit 620, and a processor 630.”
Which shows that system/computer has the generic pieces of a processor, input device, output device, etc., and thus any generic computing device can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the apparatus, processors, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Bell (U.S. Publication No. 2024/040,4702), Kim (U.S. Publication No. 2022/015,0123), and Appu (U.S. Publication No. 2021/037,4896). Bell, a system and method for deploying a machine-learning model for performing a specific clinical task, teaches a machine learning model with nodes, edges, and paths, traversing from an input to an output using paths of branching trees, interconnected nodes by edges and multiple other nodes, use of a GPU and CPU for machine learning tasks, modules for task, but it does not define a profiled edge list L or a profiled path P, nor does it teach deriving using a topological sort. Kim, a temporal-based network embedding and prediction system and method, teaches a temporal graph being used with edges and vertexes and use of machine learning objectives, use of edge-constrained graph time-series representation, taking into account node pairs for linking edges directly, adding up the edges, but it does not explicitly state to define a profiled edge list L or a profiled path P, nor does it teach deriving using a topological sort. Appu, a system for power-based and target-based graphics quality adjustment, teaches training of a machine learning model which is used with new input data, using vertex shading and topology generation, and executing data paths during a sort but it does not define a profiled edge list L or a profiled path P, nor does it teach deriving using a topological sort. None of the prior art explicitly teaches to define a profiled edge list L or a profiled path P, nor does it teach deriving using a topological sort, along with the other limitations of the claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1 and 6, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240404702 A1
Bell; Joshua Michael et al.
Systems and Methods for Deploying a Machine-Learning Model for Performing a Specific Clinical Task
US 20220150123 A1
Kim; Sungchul et al.
Temporal-Based Network Embedding and Prediction
US 20210374896 A1
Appu; Abhishek R. et al.
POWER-BASED AND TARGET-BASED GRAPHICS QUALITY ADJUSTMENT
US 20250259032 A1
Crabtree; Jason et al.
FEDERATED DISTRIBUTED GRAPH-BASED COMPUTING PLATFORM
US 20230282311 A1
Behsaz; Bahar et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY NATURAL PRODUCTS FROM MASS SPECTROMETRY AND GENOMICS DATA
US 20220374558 A1
Patel; Nitin et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADE-OFF VISUAL ANALYSIS
US 20200005424 A1
Appu; Abhishek R. et al.
POWER-BASED AND TARGET-BASED GRAPHICS QUALITY ADJUSTMENT
US 20180309843 A1
Chandra; Manish et al.
Managing Content of Virtual Containers
US 20160306896 A1
Paradies; Marcus et al.
EXTENDING GRAPH TRAVERSALS WITH APPLICATION LOGIC
US 20050160404 A1
Nachmanson, Lev Borisovich et al.
Non-deterministic testing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights