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 Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “writing metadata relationships between the unstructured data and an excludes node on the knowledge graph”. The limitation is interpreted as - writing metadata relationships between the unstructured data and an excluded node on the knowledge graph -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claimed invention, at independent claims 1, 8, 15, is directed to a method (process), system (machine), and computer readable medium (manufacture) for receiving unstructured data including text; applying contextual analysis and phrase recognition to at least a portion of the unstructured data; breaking the unstructured data into tokens based on the step of applying; determining archetype associations of the tokens; applying a logics operation to determine a code conclusion from the archetype associations, wherein the code conclusion includes a plurality of selections; querying a knowledge graph for encapsulation data describing a process for determining which of the plurality of selections to select; and encapsulating a single selection and excluding a remainder of the selections of the plurality of selections based on the process provided by the knowledge graph.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Under the 35 U.S.C. 101 new guidelines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed steps fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The steps of receiving unstructured data including text; applying contextual analysis and phrase recognition to at least a portion of the unstructured data; breaking the unstructured data into tokens; determining archetype associations of the tokens; applying a logics operation to determine a code conclusion from the archetype associations; querying a knowledge graph for determining which of the plurality of selections to select; and encapsulating a single selection and excluding a remainder of the selections, encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.. A human can perform the claimed steps using a pen and paper without using a machine. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claimed steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor” are mere data gathering and manipulating recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is recited at a high level of generality, and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
As to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (Step 2B), as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 2, the use of “processor” is at high level of generality, and even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further refer and describe the process of writing metadata (claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17) and the selection process (claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-20) which encompasses a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind, as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 1. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari (US 20220253609) in view of Mallin (US 20240073160).
As per claim 1, Tiwari teaches receiving unstructured data including text ([0055], input data in the form of unstructured text is received);
applying contextual analysis and phrase recognition to at least a portion of the unstructured data ([0058], wherein verbal and non-verbal expressions and also sensors information are processed to determine the user intent);
breaking the unstructured data into tokens based on the step of applying ([0040], during processing the input text predicting word after word within the sequences of words);
determining archetype associations of the tokens ([0057], in response to receiving input data 128/328, determining an intent of user 118, a sentiment of user 118, a character archetype);
applying a logics operation to determine a code conclusion from the archetype associations, wherein the code conclusion includes a plurality of selections ([0052], wherein a hard-coded embedding may be utilized for each character archetype in order to accomplish matching translated responses characteristic of a character archetype to payload content in terms of general mood and subject matter);
querying a knowledge graph for encapsulation data describing a process for determining which of the plurality of selections to select ([0062], searching the database identified in action 440 based on the character archetype); and
encapsulating a single selection and excluding a remainder of the selections of the plurality of selections based on the process provided by the knowledge graph ([0047]- [0049], wherein the closest payload match is select to provide the most intent-driven personified response to the user). Tiwari necessarily teach excluding the remainder of the selections of the plurality of selections to output the most intent-driven personified response to the user, as evidenced by paragraph [0049]. However, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner refers to the prior art Mallin. Mallin in the same field of endeavor teaches excluding the remainder of the selections of the plurality of selections, as evidenced by paragraph [0197], wherein the display of the user selected result can exclude presentation of other of the multiple results. For example, the web page shown in FIG. 33 may not include any of the other search results that are responsive to the query. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Mallin with the system of Tiwari, in order to improve accuracy.
As per claim 4, Tiwari teaches, at paragraph [0047]- [0049], selecting the closest payload match to provide the most intent-driven personified response to the user. It’s common knowledge that the selected single response is not among the plurality of selections, and the excluding excludes each of the other plurality of selections. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed for the claimed single selection is not among the plurality of selections.
As per claim 5, Tiwari teaches wherein the single selection is among the plurality of selections, and the remainder of the selections include all of the plurality of selections except for the single selection (the process of [0047]- [0049], wherein the closest payload match is select to provide the most intent-driven personified response to the user), necessarily teach excluding the remainder of the selections, and the remainer of selections obviously does not include the single selection).
As per claim 6, Tiwari may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of selections are medical codes that differ only at a final alphanumeric position, and wherein the step of choosing chooses the selection with a highest alphabetical letter as compared to a remainder of the plurality of selections. Biswas in the same field of endeavor teaches a named entity recognition tool enables the AI models to locate and classify entities from unstructured text (medical literature) into predefined categories, such as key people, adverse reactions, medication errors, medical codes, time expressions, quantities, monetary values, percentages etc. (col. 19, line 50-59). Furthermore, the use of the alphanumeric coding is well known in the medical field. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the medical codes recognition tool with the system of Tiwari, and identify the highest alphabetical letter codes for selection, in order to perform the claimed selection step. This would provide highly detailed classifications of diseases, allowing for more specific billing and, research than numeric-only systems.
As per claim 7, Tiwari teaches wherein the step of choosing a single selection includes textually analyzing the plurality of selections ([0047]- [0049], textually analyzing the plurality of selections in order to determine which utterance to insert into a response).
As per claims 8 and 11-14, system claims 8, 11-14 and method claims 1, 4-7 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 8, 11-14 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 1, 4-7. Furthermore, Tiwari teaches one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions, as claimed ([0022]).
As per claims 15 and 18-20, Tiwari teaches a computer readable medium ([0021]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claims 1 and 4-7.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari (US 20220253609) in view of Mallin (US 20240073160), and further in view of Kudryavtsev (US 20200042557).
As per claims 2-3, Tiwari in view of Mallin may not explicitly disclose writing metadata relationships between the selection and the unstructured data, and between the unstructured data and an excluded node on the knowledge graph. Kudryavtsev in the same field of endeavor teaches generating metadata describing unstructured data objects in accordance with multiple implementations ([0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the metadata generating tool of Kudryavtsev with the system of Tiwari in view of Mallin, in order to write metadata relationships between the selection and the unstructured data, and between the unstructured data and an excluded node on the knowledge graph. This would ensure data retrieval.
As per claims 9-10, system claims 9-10 and method claims 2-3 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 9-10 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 2-3.
As per claims 16-17, Tiwari teaches a computer readable medium ([0021]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claims 2-3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659