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 .
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11, 15-17, and 20 have been amended. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: As amended, the pending independent claims are not directed to "organizing human activity," as asserted in the Office Action, but instead are directed to a computer-implemented technique for generating and traversing a knowledge graph derived from a hierarchically structured corpus of text. While the digital file used in the claimed system may include compliance-related information, the claims do not recite rules, policies, legal obligations, or business decision-making. Rather, the claims recite a specific sequence of technical operations- parsing and preprocessing text, constructing a graph with hierarchical metadata, generating vector representations using an embedding model, computing similarity metrics, and producing knowledge graph traversal paths based on those metrics. The compliance context merely supplies input data and a field of use, and does not define the claimed invention itself.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims are directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" in the form of business relations. The examiner respectfully notes that “implementing a dynamic compliance knowledge graph” as claimed relates to Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0019] – “...a dynamic compliance knowledge graph provides functionality to map a user’s current status to the dynamic compliance knowledge graph and to provide users with a metric indicating the user’s level of compliance with regulatory laws and codes.” Thus, the claim does in fact relate to a form of a business relation, as argued, the “specific sequence of technical operations- parsing and preprocessing text, constructing a graph with hierarchical metadata, generating vector representations using an embedding model, computing similarity metrics, and producing knowledge graph traversal paths based on those metrics” lead to the construction of a “dynamic compliance knowledge graph” which provides a specific business relation related to compliance. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Office Action further characterizes the claims as reciting "mental processes." However, the amended claims now expressly require representing both nodes and queries as vectors generated by an embedding model, calculating quantitative similarity or distance metrics including cosine similarity or L1/L2 norms, and applying threshold-based filtering to identify and remove unrelated target nodes. These operations involve mathematical computations over machine-generated vector representations and graph data structures, and cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the amended claims do not fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes the use of “an embedding model” noted to be a generic computing element. The examiner respectfully notes that the human mind can represent both nodes and queries as vectors generated by pen and paper, calculate, quantitative similarity or distance metrics including cosine similarity or L1/L2 norms by pen and paper, and apply threshold-based filtering to identify and remove unrelated target nodes by pen and paper. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that mathematical computations over vector representations and graph data structuring are able to be performed by the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims are directed towards “Mental Processes.” Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Even if a judicial exception were implicated, the amended claims integrate any such exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims recite an ordered combination of technical steps that improve how a computer processes and retrieves information from large, hierarchically organized text corpora. By embedding hierarchical metadata into graph nodes, generating vector representations for nodes and queries, computing similarity metrics, and generating knowledge graph traversal paths that share a majority of a traversal path to a first target node, the claimed system provides a concrete mechanism for efficiently identifying relevant paths within a dynamic knowledge graph. This constitutes a meaningful limitation that goes beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the features argued by applicant, i.e., “ordered combination of technical steps [...]processes and retrieves information from large, hierarchically organized text corpora. By embedding hierarchical metadata into graph nodes, generating vector representations for nodes and queries, computing similarity metrics, and generating knowledge graph traversal paths that share a majority of a traversal path to a first target node,” which are the purported improvement to a computer process, are noted to be improvements that lie within the abstract idea itself. The examiner respectfully notes that “the computer process” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Furthermore, when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the amended independent claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of embedding-model-based vectorization, explicit similarity or distance metric computation, threshold-based filtering of candidate target nodes relative to a first target node, and traversal path generation based on hierarchical metadata defines a specific technological solution for dynamic knowledge graph traversal. These elements are not conventional or routine computer functions performed in isolation, but instead operate together to provide improved computer functionality in generating and navigating knowledge graphs derived from complex textual sources.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the features argued by applicant, i.e., “ordered combination of technical steps [...]processes and retrieves information from large, hierarchically organized text corpora. By embedding hierarchical metadata into graph nodes, generating vector representations for nodes and queries, computing similarity metrics, and generating knowledge graph traversal paths that share a majority of a traversal path to a first target node,” lie within the abstract idea itself. The “computer functions/functionality” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there are no meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicants further note that the Office Action acknowledges that the cited prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed feature set. While patent eligibility under § 101 is a separate inquiry, this acknowledgment underscores that the claims are directed to a specific technical approach for knowledge graph construction and traversal, rather than an abstract idea divorced from technological implementation. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner agrees that patent eligibility under § 101 is a separate inquiry. A claim can be found novel with respect to prior art but still found to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a machine, process, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receive a
generate a knowledge graph from text within the
parsing the text into constitute elements and performing
creating nodes based on one or more parsed text entities within the
creating edges based on relationships between the nodes within the
generating the knowledge graph based on the nodes and the edges;
receive a query regarding compliance to the
embedding the query into a query vector
represent each mode as a node vector;
calculate a metric between each node vector to the query vector including at least one cosine similarity, an L1 norm, or an L2 norm; and
provide one or more knowledge graph traversal paths to one or more target nodes based on metrics, including:
selecting a first target node based on a highest semantic similarity between the query vector and the node vectors,
filtering additional target nodes by comparing a metric between the additional target nodes and the first target node to a threshold such that unrelated target nodes are removed, and
generating each knowledge graph traversal path based on the metadata identifying the hierarchical levels.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, includes receive a file including a compliance file, which includes one or more levels of compliance processes in a hierarchical order; generate a knowledge graph from text within the file by: parsing the text into constitute elements and performing preprocessing on the parsed text; creating nodes based on one or more text entities within the file...; creating edges based on relationships between the nodes within the file..., and generating the knowledge graph based on the nodes and the edges; receive a query regarding compliance to the file embedding the query into a query vector; represent each mode as a node vector; calculate a metric between each node vector to a query vector...; and provide one or more knowledge graph traversal paths to one or more target nodes based on metrics, including: selecting a first target node based on a highest semantic similarity between the query vector and the node vectors, filtering additional target nodes by comparing a metric between the additional target nodes and the first target node to a threshold such that unrelated target nodes are removed, and generating each knowledge graph traversal path based on the metadata identifying the hierarchical levels, thus, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 11and 20, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" in the form of business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, i.e., system with processor and computer-readable media and further a digital file; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, includes receive a file including a compliance file, which includes one or more levels of compliance processes in a hierarchical order; generate a knowledge graph from text within the file by: parsing the text into constitute elements and performing preprocessing on the parsed text; creating nodes based on one or more text entities within the file...; creating edges based on relationships between the nodes within the file..., and generating the knowledge graph based on the nodes and the edges; receive a query regarding compliance to the file embedding the query into a query vector; represent each mode as a node vector; calculate a metric between each node vector to a query vector...; and provide one or more knowledge graph traversal paths to one or more target nodes based on metrics, including: selecting a first target node based on a highest semantic similarity between the query vector and the node vectors, filtering additional target nodes by comparing a metric between the additional target nodes and the first target node to a threshold such that unrelated target nodes are removed, and generating each knowledge graph traversal path based on the metadata identifying the hierarchical levels, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. 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, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, recite i.e., system with processor and computer-readable media and further a digital file and use of natural language processing and an embedding model. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0028]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, 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.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, i.e., system with processor and computer-readable media and further a digital file and use of natural language processing and an embedding model; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-19, claims 2-10 and 12-19 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to a dynamic compliance knowledge graph and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Reasons For No Prior Art Rejection
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The closest prior art of record noted below:
Brecque (US 11,087,219 B1) discusses a semantic document generation system is described. The semantic document is composed of document details, people and meta-data. The semantic document is self-aware of the information it contains. The semantic document's structure and terms are governed by legal, logical and party related rules. A semantic contract can be created from a semantic document generation system. The semantic document generation system receives an indication of a type of a document to be generated and plurality of terms for the document from a plurality of sources. The terms are converted into triples. A plurality of rules governing the terms of the document is applied to the triples to generate a knowledge graph and determine whether terms from the different parties are compatible. The terms are determined to be compatible in a case where the plurality of rules governing terms of the document is satisfied. If at least one set of terms is non-compatible, the system reconciles the non-compatible terms in the generated knowledge graph until all the terms are compatible, and generates the document based at least on the reconciled knowledge graph. (Abstract).
Kaur et al (US 2023/0237512 A1) discusses a method and a system for automatically processing financial documents to generate knowledge graphs that convey information relating to entities of interest and relationships between those entities are provided. The method includes: receiving a document; extracting raw text included in the document; identifying, based on the extracted raw text, a set of entities that are named in the document; determining respective relationship information that corresponds to respective pairs of entities; constructing a knowledge graph that illustrates respective relationships among the respective pairs of entities; and outputting the knowledge graph. The determination of the respective relationship information may be performed by applying an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm that is trained by using historical data that relates to the set of entities.. (Abstract)
Kurshan (US 2024/0054320 A1) discusses a method of providing a multi-dimensional knowledge graph including entities and relationships between entities comprises generating an initial entity component of the knowledge graph using underlying data including a plurality of entity nodes and one or more relationship edges that connect the entities, storing the entity component in computer memory, associating at least a first requirement with a one the relationship edges that defines an iterative or recursive functional description (“function”) of the relationship edge, wherein the function defines a dependency of the relationship upon conditions, parameters and other factors, each iteration or recursion of the requirement defining a dimension of the knowledge graph. The recursion proceeds until all conditions, parameters and other factors that determine a state of the relationships edge is included in the graph. The associated requirements included in the knowledge graph for the relationship edges are then store in computer memory. (Abstract).
However, regarding claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 11 and 20, the prior art of record as cited within this Office Action, nor those cited, in as additional references on the PTO-892, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the features of:
receive a digital file including a compliance file, which includes one or more levels of compliance processes in a hierarchical order;
generate a knowledge graph from text within the digital file by:
parsing the text into constituent elements and performing natural language preprocessing on the parsed text,
creating nodes based on one or more parsed text entities within the digital file, wherein each node includes metadata identifying hierarchical levels of the digital file for the node,
creating edges based on relationships between the nodes within the digital file, including relationships identified by entity extraction, relation extraction, andontology building, and
generating the knowledge graph based on the nodes and the edges;receive a query regarding compliance to the digital file;
embed the query into a query vector using an embedding model;
represent each node as a node vector;
calculate a metric between each node vector to the query vector of the query including at least one of cosine similarity, an L1 norm, or an L2 norm; and
provide one or more knowledge graph traversal compliance paths to one or more target nodes based on metrics, including:
selecting a first target node based on a highest semantic similarity between the query vector and the node vectors,
filtering additional target nodes by comparing a metric between the additional target nodes and the first target node to a threshold such that unrelated target nodes are removed, and
generating each knowledge graph traversal path based on the metadata identifying the hierarchical levels.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights