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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In step 1, of the 101-analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined
that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within one or more statutory categories (processes).
In step 2A prong 1, of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined
that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recites abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components:
Regarding claim 1:
assign a corresponding prime number to each of the plurality of tokens;
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves assigning numerical identifiers or labels to information elements (tokens) according to a predetermined relationship. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
generate a plurality of encoded values, each based at least in part on one of the plurality of tokens and a prime number assigned to the one of the plurality of tokens.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves creating representations of information by associating tokens with assigned values and generating corresponding encoded representations. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101-analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that
the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions executable by circuitry to:
(i.e.: deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claim recites limitation which does not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receive a plurality of tokens of a knowledge graph;
(i.e.: deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claim recites limitation directed to mere data gathering as deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception because claimed elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP (2106.05(g))).
In Step 2B of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the
claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitation (I) recites mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding limitation (II), additional elements considered extra/post solution activity, as analyzed above, are activity that are well-understood routine and conventional, specifically: the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions.
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); TL| 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). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
As analyzed above, the additional elements, analyzed above, do not integrate the noted judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 and 15, recite similar subject matter as claim 1, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
generate a first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values of a first token of the plurality of tokens by multiplying a prime number assigned to the first token by a prime number assigned to a second token that is a superset comprising the first token.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mathematical concept: It involves performing a mathematical calculation using assigned numerical values to determine a relationship between information elements. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
5. Claim(s) 9 and 16, recite similar subject matter as claim 2, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
receive set relationships corresponding to the plurality of tokens that specify which tokens are superset tokens and which tokens of the plurality of tokens are comprised within a superset token.
The recitation in the additional limitation directed to mere data gathering as deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception because claimed elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood routine and conventional (2106.05(d)).
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); TL| 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). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional limitations as analyze failed to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A and provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, per the analysis above.
Claim(s) 10 and 17, recite similar subject matter as claim 3, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, dependent upon claim 2, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
generate a first result of the first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values modulo a third token of the plurality of tokens; and
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mathematical concept: It involves performing a mathematical operation (modulo operation) on encoded information to obtain a result. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
generate an indication specifying the first token is in a subset of a set of the third token, responsive to the first result is zero.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves evaluating a calculated result and determining a relationship between information elements based on whether a condition is satisfied. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
Claim(s) 11 and 18, recite similar subject matter as claim 4, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5, dependent upon claim 4, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
generate a second result of the first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values modulo a fourth token of the plurality of tokens;
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mathematical concept: It involves performing an additional mathematical calculation on encoded information using modulo operation . See (MPEP 2106.04)).
generate an indication specifying the first token is in a union of the set of the third token and a set of the fourth token, responsive to a multiplicative product of the first result and the second result is zero.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves analyzing a result and determining a logical relationship between information sets based on a condition. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
Claim(s) 12 and 19, recite similar subject matter as claim 5, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6, dependent upon claim 4, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
generate a second result of the first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values modulo a fourth token of the plurality of tokens;
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mathematical concept: It involves performing an additional mathematical calculation on encoded information using modulo operation . See (MPEP 2106.04)).
generate an indication specifying the first token is in an intersect of the set of the third token and a set of the fourth token, responsive to a sum of the first result and the second result is zero.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves evaluating numerical results and determining whether information satisfies a logical set relationship based on a mathematical condition. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
Claim(s) 13 and 20, recite similar subject matter as claim 6, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, dependent upon claim 2, and fail to resolve the deficiencies identified above by
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites:
generate a result of an encoded value of a third token of the plurality of tokens modulo an assigned prime number of a fourth token of the plurality of tokens; and
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mathematical concept: It involves performing a mathematical calculation using encoded values and assigned numerical identifiers to determine a result. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
generate an indication specifying the fourth token is in a superset of the third token, responsive to the result is zero.
(i.e.: the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites abstract idea: mental process: It involves analyzing a calculated result and determining a hierarchical relationship between information elements based on a condition. See (MPEP 2106.04)).
Claim 14, recites similar subject matter as claim 7, so is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 2, 8 – 9 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramzan et al., Pub. No.: US11269595B2 in view of Pan et al., "Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap".
Regarding claim 1, Ramzan teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions executable by circuitry to:
((Ramzan, col. 14 line [63 – 66]) “The processing device 802-1 in the processing platform 800 comprises a processor 810 coupled to a memory 812 [A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions executable by circuitry to]. The processor 810 may comprise a microprocessor, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC),”)
assign a corresponding prime number to each of the plurality of tokens;
((Ramzan, col. 1 line [61 – 67]), “(i) identifying devices that a given user was connected to at the given time; and (ii) identifying a plurality of users connected to a given device at the given time. A mapping can be maintained between: (i) an identifier of each of the entities [to each of the plurality of tokens] and the corresponding prime number [assign a corresponding prime number]; and/or (ii) each prime number and an identifier of the corresponding entity.”)
generate a plurality of encoded values, each based at least in part on one of the plurality of tokens
and
((Ramzan, col. 1 line [61 – 67]), “In some embodiments, a multiset compression algorithm is provided that associates entity (e.g., device) identifiers with prime numbers and encodes a multiset with the product of these prime numbers [generate a plurality of encoded values, each based at least in part on one of the plurality of tokens]. In this manner, a multiset can be compactly represented as a single (typically large) integer value.”)
a prime number assigned to the one of the plurality of tokens.
((Ramzan, col. 1 line [61 – 67]), “(i) identifying devices that a given user was connected to at the given time; and (ii) identifying a plurality of users connected to a given device at the given time. A mapping can be maintained between: (i) an identifier of each of the entities [to each of the plurality of tokens] and the corresponding prime number [assign a corresponding prime number]; and/or (ii) each prime number and an identifier of the corresponding entity.”)
Ramzan does not teach:
receive a plurality of tokens of a knowledge graph;
Pan teaches:
receive a plurality of tokens of a knowledge graph;
((Pan, page: 8), “Specifically, ERNIE feeds both sentences and corresponding entities mentioned in the text into LLMs, and then trains the LLMs to predict alignment links between textual tokens and entities in knowledge graphs [receive a plurality of tokens of a knowledge graph]. Similarly, KALM [91] enhances the input tokens by incorporating entity embeddings and includes an entity prediction pre-training task in addition to the token-only pre-training objective.”)
Pan and Ramzan are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e.: structured encoding of entities for efficiency in storage). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Pan with teachings of Ramzan to add a knowledge graph based framework for representing entities and relationships with semantic context to enable richer entity identification and relationship reasoning. (Pan, Abstract).
Claim(s) 8 and 15, recite limitations analogous to claim 1, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Ramzan in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramzan further teaches: wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate a first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values of a first token of the plurality of tokens by multiplying a prime number assigned to the first token by a prime number assigned to a second token that is a superset comprising the first token.
(Ramzan, (col. 3 line [26 – 34]), “Generally, the exemplary multiset encoder 130 encodes a multiset comprised of entities [generate a first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values of a first token of the plurality of tokens], over time, as a product of a prime number assigned to each of the entities in the multiset to obtain an integer representation 150 of the multiset, as discussed further below [by multiplying a prime number assigned to the first token by a prime number assigned to a second token that is a superset comprising the first token.]. In some embodiments, the prime number assigned to each of the entities in the multiset is stored in a database 120 that maintains an entity-to-prime number mapping (and/or a prime number-to-entity mapping).”)
Claim(s) 9 and 16, recite limitations analogous to claim 2, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramzan in view of Pan and in further view of Carter, Pub No.: US20080033987A1.
Regarding claim 3, Ramzan in view of Pan teach the method of claim 2.
Ramzan in view of Pan do not teach:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive set relationships corresponding to the plurality of tokens that specify which tokens are superset tokens and which tokens of the plurality of tokens are comprised within a superset token
Carter teaches:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive set relationships corresponding to the plurality of tokens that specify which tokens are superset tokens and which tokens of the plurality of tokens are comprised within a superset token.
(Carter, “[0033] If the fundamental relationship between entities in a domain is the relationship of membership [receive set relationships corresponding to the plurality of tokens], then the membership function by which information item A is an element of information item B [that specify which tokens are superset tokens] is implemented by the data management operations by which the node assigned to A is primordinated by the node assigned to B. Similarly, if the fundamental relationship is causality, then the causal relationship by which information item A is caused by item B [which tokens of the plurality of tokens are comprised within a superset token] are likewise implemented by the data management operations by which the node assigned to A is primordinated by the node assigned to B. Whatever the fundamental relationship between the information items might be for two items in a given problem domain, that relationship can be mapped to the logical relationship of primordination, which in turn has an implementation in the computer system via the primordination assignment rules. It is also possible to use primordination itself as the fundamental relationship in a problem domain, where primordination becomes a generic relationship between any two items.”)
Carter, Ramzan and Pan are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e.: structured encoding of entities for efficiency in storage). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Carter with teachings of Ramzan and Pan to add a prime based graph structure for organizing encoded entities according to prime factor relationships to enable efficient representation. (Carter, Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 and 17, recite limitations analogous to claim 3, so are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramzan in view of Pan and in further view of Crocker et al., Pub No.: US20220100799A1 and Fischer, Pub. No.: US20150270965A1.
Regarding claim 7, Ramzan in view of Pan teach the method of claim 2.
Ramzan further teaches: an assigned prime number of a fourth token of the plurality of tokens; and
(Ramzan, (col. 3 line [35 – 47]) “As shown in FIG. 1, the exemplary multiset encoder 130 comprises an entity insertion module 135 and an entity removal module 140 that process corresponding actions of an entity entering or leaving the multiset, respectively. Generally, the exemplary entity insertion module 135 adds an entity to the multiset at a given time by multiplying the integer representation of the multiset at the given time by the prime number assigned to the added entity [an assigned prime number of a fourth token of the plurality of tokens;], as discussed further below. Likewise, the entity removal module 140 removes an entity from the multiset at a given time by dividing the integer representation of the multiset at the given time by the prime number assigned to the removed entity, as discussed further below.”)
Ramzan in view of Pan do not teach:
generate a result of an encoded value of a third token of the plurality of tokens modulo
generate an indication specifying the fourth token is in a superset of the third token, responsive to the result is zero.
Crocker teaches:
generate a result of an encoded value of a third token of the plurality of tokens modulo
(Crocker, “[0041] In a second embodiment, the distributed database stores one attoshard for the current configuration of the cluster set. The particular node determines the certain cluster by mapping the token τ onto its first attoshard equivalent φ using a modulo operation of the total number of nodes in the cluster set, N [generate a result of an encoded value of a third token of the plurality of tokens modulo]:”)
Crocker, Ramzan and Pan are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e.: structured encoding of entities for efficiency in storage). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Crocker with teachings of Ramzan and Pan to add distributed partitioning of encoded data based on hashing and modulo operations to improve scalability and fault tolerant storage. (Crocker, Abstract).
Ramzan in view of Pan and Crocker do not teach:
generate an indication specifying the fourth token is in a superset of the third token, responsive to the result is zero
Fischer teaches:
generate an indication specifying the fourth token is in a superset of the third token, responsive to the result is zero
(Fischer, “[0058] According to the second variant, at S610, a counter i is initialized. In some implementations the initialization encompasses an assignment of a register address, for example, in a register bank of CPU 110 or in memory 130, and setting a value at the register address to a predetermined value. For example, initialization in some embodiments includes setting the value of counter i to zero [generate an indication specifying the fourth token is in a superset of the third token, responsive to the result is zero].”)
Fischer, Ramzan, Pan and Crocker are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e.: structured encoding of entities for efficiency in storage). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Fischer with teachings of Ramzan, Pan and Crocker to add deterministic generation and regeneration of encoded values to enable consistent and reproducible representations of data. (Fischer, Abstract).
Claim 14, recites limitations analogous to claim 7, so is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable subject matter
Claim(s) 4 – 6, 11 – 13 and 18 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The prior art made of record does not teach, make obvious, or suggest the claim limitations as disclosed in applicant's claims.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 recite:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: generate a first result of the first encoded value of the plurality of encoded values modulo a third token of the plurality of tokens; and generate an indication specifying the first token is in a subset of a set of the third token, responsive to the first result is zero.
Closest prior arts:
Ramzan et al., Pub. No.: US11269595B2.
Ramzan teaches assigning a unique prime number to each entity, encodes a multiset as the product of the assigned prime numbers, and determines entity membership by decoding or testing for the presence of the corresponding prime factor in the encoded integer representation. However, Ramzan does not teach determining subset membership by testing whether an encoded prime product value is divisible by token’s assigned prime. If the modulo result is zero, indicate that the token belongs to the represented set or that the set contains the token.
Pan et al., "Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap."
Pan teaches a roadmap for unifying large language models (LLMs) and knowledge graphs (KGs) to leverage the complementary strength of both. It categorizes existing approaches into frameworks. KG-enhanced LLMs, which use knowledge graphs to improve LLM training, inference and interpretability, LLM augmented graph construction, completion and reasoning tasks and synergized LLM-KG system, in which LLMs and KGs work together to enable bidirectional knowledge driven reasoning. However, Pan does not teach determining subset membership by testing whether an encoded prime product value is divisible by token’s assigned prime. If the modulo result is zero, indicate that the token belongs to the represented set or that the set contains the token.
Carter, Pub No.: US20080033987A1.
Carter teaches a primenet data representation includes a plurality of records that are associated with an information item and are uniquely defined by a collection of prime numbers, the product of which is a unique integer stored in association with the record. However, Carter does not teach determining subset membership by testing whether an encoded prime product value is divisible by token’s assigned prime. If the modulo result is zero, indicate that the token belongs to the represented set or that the set contains the token.
The dependent claim(s): 5 – 6, are allowable because of their dependency to claim 4. Claim(s) 12, 19 include limitations analogous to claim 5 and claim(s) 13, 20 include limitations analogous to claim 6 and are therefore allowed for the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang, et al. "Wasserstein graph distance based on l1–approximated tree edit distance between weisfeiler–lehman subtrees."
Fang leverages a WL subtree as structural information for node neighborhoods and defines node metrics using the L1-approximated tree edit distance (L1-TED) between WL subtrees of nodes.
Bai, , et al. "Simgnn: A neural network approach to fast graph similarity computation."
Bai propose an efficient and effective attention mechanism to select the most relevant parts of a graph to generate a graph-level embed ding, which preserves the similarity between graphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MATIYAS T MARU whose telephone number is (571)270-0902 or via email: matiyas.maru@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 8:00am - Friday 4:00pm 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,
Michelle Bechtold can be reached on (571)431-0762. The fax phone number for the organization were 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.
/M.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2148 /MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights