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 . This office action is in response to the instant application filled on 12/12/2023. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023, 01/06/2024, and 04/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 10, and 20 recite upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements, wherein: each element includes at least one pair of cause events and an effect event; and the lattice is configured to relate each one of the first plurality of elements to at least one other element of the first plurality of elements based on the pair of cause events; extending the lattice to include a second plurality of events. Given the semi-colon before extending, it is not clear whether extending the lattice to include a second plurality of events is what is done upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements. As it stands, the limitation is incomplete and it is unclear what is done upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as such: upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements, wherein: each element includes at least one pair of cause events and an effect event; and the lattice is configured to relate each one of the first plurality of elements to at least one other element of the first plurality of elements based on the pair of cause events, extending the lattice to include a second plurality of events. The remaining claims are deemed indefinite because they depend on either claim 1 or 10.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a method which falls into the statutory category of process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites multiple mental processes:
upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements, wherein: each element includes at least one pair of cause events and an effect event; and the lattice is configured to relate each one of the first plurality of elements to at least one other element of the first plurality of elements based on the pair of cause events; extending the lattice to include a second plurality of events, is considered a mental process given a human being can reasonably extend a lattice in their mind or with the aid of pen and pencil. Further, upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements is considered specifics of the abstract idea of extending the lattice, given it merely states when to extend the lattice and doesn’t necessarily describe actively determining what elements are in the lattice.
determining a first effect event included in the second plurality of events and corresponding to a first pair of cause events included in the first plurality of elements, is considered a mental process given a human being can reasonably pick a first effect event in their mind by looking at the lattice.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements of: a computer-implemented method, are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea by a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract ideas by generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, further the claim recites: further comprising determining a first effect event included in the first plurality of elements and corresponding to a first pair of cause events included in the second plurality of events. This limitation is considered a mental process given a human being can reasonably determine an effect event from a plurality of elements in their mind. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, further the claim recites: further comprising determining a second effect event included in the first plurality of elements and corresponding to a second pair of cause events included in the second plurality of elements. This limitation is considered a mental process given a human being can reasonably determine an effect event from a plurality of elements in their mind. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, further the claim recites: wherein the second plurality of elements comprises a counterfactual domain. This limitation merely describes the second plurality of elements and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of extending the lattice. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, further the claim recites: further comprising arranging the first plurality of elements into a first partial ordered set of data. This limitation amounts to a mental process given a human being can reasonably arrange elements into a partial ordered set with the aid of pen and pencil. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, further the claim recites: further comprising extending the lattice according to a continuous function. This limitation merely describes how to extend the lattice and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of extending the lattice. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, further the claim recites: further comprising extending the lattice according to a predefined template as join-homomorphism on the first partial ordered set of data. This limitation merely describes how to extend the lattice and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of extending the lattice. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, further the claim recites: wherein the first effect event in the second plurality of events corresponds to the pair of cause events in the first plurality of elements according to an approximation of causality. This limitation merely describes the first effect event and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of determining a first effect event. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, further the claim recites: wherein the first effect event in the second plurality of events corresponds to the pair of cause events in the first plurality of elements according to entailment. This limitation merely describes the first effect event and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of determining a first effect event. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 10-16 and claims 18-20, the claims recite essentially the same inventive concept as claims 1-9 with the addition of a computer program product and a computer system which fall into the statutory categories of manufacture and machine and are merely instructions to apply the abstract ideas; as such, the rejections above are incorporated and claims 10-16 and claims 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, further the claim recites: wherein the execution of the program instructions further causes the computing device to extend the lattice according to a monotonic function. This limitation merely describes how to extend the lattice and as such amounts to more specifics of the abstract idea of extending the lattice. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garapati (US20230102002A1).
Regarding claim 1, Garapati teaches upon determining a lattice has a first plurality of elements, wherein: each element includes at least one pair of cause events and an effect event; and the lattice is configured to relate each one of the first plurality of elements to at least one other element of the first plurality of elements based on the pair of cause events (Figure 5, event pairs all related to one another includes elements with 2 cause events and effect event like 10.0) extending the lattice to include a second plurality of events; and determining a first effect event included in the second plurality of events and corresponding to a first pair of cause events included in the first plurality of elements (Par 0212, Thus, for example, as the new event and associated edge(s) are added, it may occur that the new event has a stronger, nearer connection to an existing event than any existing edge of the existing event. In such cases, the weakest edge of the existing event may be removed by the edge filter 1510, new event is the first effect event and the edges connect to existing cause events in the lattice).
Regarding claim 2, Garapati teaches further comprising determining a first effect event included in the first plurality of elements and corresponding to a first pair of cause events included in the second plurality of events (Par 0212, Thus, for example, as the new event and associated edge(s) are added, it may occur that the new event has a stronger, nearer connection to an existing event than any existing edge of the existing event. In such cases, the weakest edge of the existing event may be removed by the edge filter 1510, the new events may also be cause events that point to effect events in the existing lattice see Fig 18 the third layer adds a pair of cause events and the edges lead to the same node).
Regarding claim 3, Garapati teaches further comprising determining a second effect event included in the first plurality of elements and corresponding to a second pair of cause events included in the second plurality of elements (Par 0195, Moreover, the event pair selector 138 of FIG. 15 enables incremental additions of new events to the multi-layered small world graph 1514, as new events are received, incremental additions means the steps described in claim 2 occur again with a new set of additions that can be considered a second pair of events).
Regarding claim 4, Garapati teaches wherein the second plurality of elements comprises a counterfactual domain (Par 0266, Accordingly, given a test data or an evolving event graph and/or situation (e.g., events for which it is not known which event happens next), the model is able to predict an event in a future timestep and its causal relationship with other events even in a previously unseen or in a different environment).
Regarding claim 5, Garapati teaches further comprising arranging the first plurality of elements into a first partial ordered set of data (Par 0336, The causality is a partial order relationship different from correlation, which is typically quantified by a correlation coefficient).
Regarding claim 6, Garapati teaches further comprising extending the lattice according to a continuous function (Claim 4, assign the new event to the intervening layer, based on an exponentially decaying probability function).
Regarding claim 7, Garapati teaches further comprising extending the lattice according to a predefined template as join-homomorphism on the first partial ordered set of data (Fig 18, lattice extended according to a join-homomorphism, the structure and order are preserved)
Regarding claim 8, Garapati teaches wherein the first effect event in the second plurality of events corresponds to the pair of cause events in the first plurality of elements according to an approximation of causality (Par 0238, As the event 1820 exists at the lowest layer 1802 but not in the intervening layer 1804, a search may be made, e.g., by the proximate event searcher 1508 of FIG. 15 , to determine nearest causal event(s), to which the new event should be connected, nearest causal events is an approximation of causality).
Regarding claim 9, Garapati teaches wherein the first effect event in the second plurality of events corresponds to the pair of cause events in the first plurality of elements according to entailment (Fig 18, the second plurality of events added to the lattice relate to the nodes they are not directly connected to but have a path to by entailment).
Regarding claims 10-16, 18-19, the inventive concept is essentially the same as claims 1-9 except the inclusion of a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, wherein an execution of the program instructions by a computer processor causes a computing device to, which is taught by Garapati (Par 0007, According to one general aspect, a computer program product may be tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and may comprise instructions….).
Regarding claim 17, Garapati teaches wherein the execution of the program instructions further causes the computing device to extend the lattice according to a monotonic function (Claim 4, assign the new event to the intervening layer, based on an exponentially decaying probability function, which is a monotonic function).
Regarding claim 20, the inventive concept is essentially the same as claim 1 except the inclusion of a computer system having a processor, a computer-readable memory, a computer-readable tangible storage device, and program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage device for execution by a processor via the computer-readable memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method, which is taught by Garapati (Par 0008, According to other general aspects, a computer-implemented method may perform the instructions of the computer program product. According to other general aspects, a system, such as a mainframe system or a distributed server system, may include at least one memory, including instructions, and at least one processor that is operably coupled to the at least one memory and that is arranged and configured to execute instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform the instructions of the computer program product and/or the operations of the computer-implemented method).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATNAEL A ASEGDEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0407. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/NATNAEL A ASEGDEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights