DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing of 4-26-2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below:
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) 1-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (“Yuan” 20220075948 A1).
Claim 1: Yuan discloses a computing system comprising: at least one memory; one or more hardware processing units coupled to the at least one memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations (Paragraphs 32 and 52; computing device) comprising:
receiving a query specifying a first knowledge graph (abstract and Paragraph 18); determining that an element of the first knowledge graph specified in the query or determined from processing the query is linked to an element of a second knowledge graph (Paragraph 20-21; context of question pertaining to knowledge graphs); in executing the query, retrieving information from the second knowledge graph using the element of the second knowledge graph (abstract and Paragraphs 22-23 (first and second knowledge graph accessed for response) 67); and returning query results in response to the query (Paragraphs 27 and 67; fused graph answers query).
Claim 2: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the element of the first knowledge graph is derived from the element of the second knowledge graph (Paragraphs 27 and 67).
Claim 3: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 2, wherein the element of the first knowledge graph and the element of the second knowledge graph are semantically identical (Paragraph 52; examples of Doe being the same).
Claim 4: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 3, wherein the element of the first knowledge graph and the element of the second knowledge graph share a common identifier (Paragraph 52; examples of Doe being the same).
Claim 5: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 4, wherein the common identifier is specified in a first namespace for the first knowledge graph and the common identifier is specified in a second namespace for the second knowledge graph (Paragraph 52; examples of Doe being the same with different spaces i.e. Mr.).
Claim 6: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving access credentials for a user submitting the query; and determining that the user is authorized to access the second knowledge graph (Paragraphs 92 and 100; security management).
Claim 7: Yuan discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the element of the first knowledge graph is linked to the element of a second knowledge graph using a tuple having elements of a subject, an object, and a predicate (Paragraph 48; subject/object).
Claim 8: Yuan discloses a method, implemented in a computing system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor(Paragraphs 32 and 52; computing device), the method comprising: receiving a request to create an element of a local knowledge graph (abstract and Paragraph 18; generate from extracted information); searching one or more other knowledge graphs to determine if a semantically equivalent element is present in a knowledge graph of the one or more other knowledge graphs (Paragraph 22-23; linkage between graphs); determining that a putative semantically equivalent element is present in the knowledge graph (Paragraphs 44 and 47; determine semantic relationship); and creating a derivative element in the local knowledge graph that is operatively linked to, and semantically identical to, the putative semantically equivalent element (Paragraph 52-53; john doe and Mr. doe are derivate elements semantically linked equivalents).
Claim 9: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, wherein the element of the local knowledge graph is a property(Paragraph 55 (value) Claim 7).
Claim 10: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, wherein the element of the local knowledge graph is a class (Claim 7).
Claim 11: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, wherein the element of the local knowledge graph is a class instance(Claim 7).
Claim 12: Yuan discloses a method of claim 11, further comprising: assigning a name of a class instance of the knowledge graph corresponding to the class instance to the class instance of the local knowledge graph; and assigning an identifier of the class instance of the knowledge graph to the class instance of the local knowledge graph (Paragraphs 35-36, 47-48 (identifier) Claim 7).
Claim 13: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, wherein the derivative element of the local knowledge graph is operatively linked to the putative semantically equivalent element by assigning a URI of the putative semantically equivalent element to the derivative element(Paragraph 62; provides named entity (namespace/uri)).
Claim 14: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving access credentials for a user submitting the request to create an element of the local knowledge graph; and determining the one or more other knowledge graphs using the access credentials, wherein the one or more other knowledge graphs are a proper subset of a plurality of available knowledge graphs (Paragraphs 92 and 100; security verification).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claims 9-11 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 13 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (“Yuan” 20220075948 A1) in view of De La Torre et al. (“Torro” 20170277856 A1).
Claim 15: Yuan discloses a method of claim 8, further comprising: in response to determining that a putative semantically equivalent element is present in the knowledge graph, displaying to a user through a user interface an indication that the putative semantically equivalent element is present (Paragraph 34, 52 and 75 (use of interface for feedback)).
Torre is also provided because it discloses a functionality of presenting within an interface an acceptance functionality for equivalent terms (Paragraphs 18-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device and provide an interface for accepting terms in Yuan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as an enhanced method of feedback with explicit inputs, for clarity of interactions.
Claim 16: Yuan and Torre disclose a method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving user input approving the putative semantically equivalent element as semantically equivalent, wherein the creating a derivative element is carried out in response to the user input (Torre: Paragraphs 18-20; interface to accept input of equivalent terms).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20220317985 A1 0070
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD L KEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY -FRIDAY 9:30-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Bechtold can be reached on 571-272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148 7-27-2026
Prosecution Insights