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 .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the office action mailed on 02/12/2026, applicant filed an amendment on 06/12/2026, amending claims 1, 8, and 15. The pending claims are 1-20.
Response to Arguments
3. With regard to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims perform a graph transformation that updates edges and relationships between those nodes to retain only a single selection by associating that selection with the unstructured data and disassociating at least one excluded selection. Applicant asserts that what’s claimed is a specific manipulation of a computer data structure (nodes and edges in a knowledge graph) that changes the state of that structure. It is not practically performable as a “pen and paper” exercise because the claimed steps require updating graph edges and relationships within the knowledge graph to enforce the one-selection constraint.
The examiner notes the concept of manipulating nodes and edges in a knowledge graph is a fundamental human activity and an abstract idea. Applicant is referred to the “Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” case where the Federal Circuit held that Electric Power Group’s asserted claims were not patent‑eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to an abstract idea—collecting, analyzing, and displaying power‑grid data—without an inventive concept, and did not improve the functioning of a computer or network. The claims in the current application do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing and manipulating the information. The claims recite 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. Accordingly, the corresponding rejection is repeated below.
With regard to art, applicants’ arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached on 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 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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights