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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/18/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 9/18/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response to claims 1-5, 7-14 has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101 paragraph.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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 1-5, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-14, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative recite:
generating, by a processor, a virtual representation of at least one part of the End-of-Life product, using a reconstruction algorithm, based on at least one input received from a source; processing the virtual representation to determine a part condition associated with the at least one part of the End-of-Life product, wherein the part condition indicates a category of damage associated with the at least one part of the End-of-Life product; classifying a health state of the at least one part of the End-of-Life product into at least one of a plurality of health states, based on at least the part condition and at least one operational attribute associated with the at least one part of the End-of-Life product; identifying, from a knowledge graph, at least one circularity decision for managing the at least one part of the End-of-Life product based on the health state of the at least one part of the End-of-Life product; and generating at least one recommendation for managing the at least one part of the End-of-Life product based on the at least one circularity decision identified, on a graphical user interface,
wherein identifying the at least one circularity decision for managing the at least one part of the End- of-Life product based on the health state of the at least one part of the End-of-Life product from the knowledge graph comprises: generating a first subgraph based on at least the health state, the part condition, and the operational attribute of the at least one part of the End-of-Life product and a primary application of the End-of-Life product comparing the first subgraph to one or more second subgraphs present in the knowledge graph to identify a contextually similar second subgraph: and identifying at least one action cluster corresponding to the contextually similar second subgraph, wherein the action cluster is indicative of the at least one circularity decision for managing the at least one part of the End-of-Life product corresponding to the health state of the at least one part of the End-of-Life product.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the limitations above recite generating a virtual presentation, determining a condition, classifying health state, identifying decisions from a knowledge graph, generating recommendations, comparing subgraphs, determining contextual similarity and identifying clusters. These steps reflect data collection, analysis and display which are all forms of abstract information processing. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, “Mental processes” and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recite additional elements, including processor, knowledge graph, GUI, reconstruction algorithm, subgraphs. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, GUI is used to display a recommendation described at a high level and uses generic conventional computer elements.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7-14 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1-5, 7-14 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements such as knowledge graphs, subgraph generation, similarity comparison, clustering and recommendation engine are well-understood, routing and conventional techniques in the field of computer-implemented decision support systems.
Returning to claim 1 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7-14 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-5, 7-14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendments and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite abstract ideas “on their own or per se”.
Examiner does not agree. The analysis focuses on the character of the claims as a whole. The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to organizing human activity specifically asset disposition and lifecycle management decision which are fundamental economic and industrial practices traditionally performed by humans. Determining whether a product should be reused, recycled constitutes organizing human activity. Further the steps of evaluating part condition and health state, comparing that information to prior contexts and selecting an action or set of actions represent mental processes as they involve evaluation, comparison and judgment. The use of computer to automate these evaluations does not remove them from the category of mental processes. Also, the recited generation and comparison of subgraphs and identification of clusters involve mathematical concepts including similarity determination and grouping based on relationships. These steps are claimed at the functional level and do not recite any specific mathematical technique.
Applicant cites automation, reduced manual effort and improved decision making to show that claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner does not agree. While the claims reference a reconstruction algorithm, a knowledge graph and GUI these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform conventional functions. Further, displaying a recommendation on a GUI is insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements are arranged in a conventional sequence of data input, analysis, comparison and output without any non-conventional arrangement or specific technical improvement.
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more that the abstract idea because the claims are detailed, novel and no prior art anticipates or renders the claims obvious.
The determination of an inventive concepts under 101 is distinct from analyses under 102 and 103. The absence of prior art anticipation or obviousness does not establish that claim elements are not well-understood, routing or conventional for purposes of subject matter eligibility.
Examiner notes: Rather than broadly claiming the use of generic Ai-based analysis and data structures, the rejection may be overcome by reciting specific technical improvements to knowledge-graph processing, subgraph similarity determination or computer functionality.
Conclusion
U.S. 12,242,975 to Wu et al. discloses techniques for identifying candidate subgraphs in a knowledge graph for responding to queries. Uses graph’s structure information encoded via neural network to match and rank subgraphs based on structural similarity to a query graph.
U.S. 11,928,699 to Marvaniya et al. discloses building knowledge graphs from supply chain data and output reasoning based on graph-derived insights.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627