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 action is in response to the communication filed on May 10, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step 2A Prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG.
Step 2B This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim 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. MPEP 2106.05.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Claims 1-6 are recited as being directed to “a computer implemented method”. Claims 7-13 are recited as being directed to “a system for generating and utilizing a geospatial knowledge graph, the system comprising …”.
Claims 14-20 are recited as being directed to a “a non-transitory computer storage medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed using one or more processors, performs a method comprising …” Thus claims 1, 7 and 14 have been identified to be directed towards the appropriate statutory category. Below is further analysis related to step 2.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 1, 7 and 14 recites, dividing a geographical area into a plurality of cells; generating a plurality of nodes on a geospatial knowledge graph, wherein the plurality of nodes correspond to the plurality of cells; generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein spatial relationships are represented as edges between the plurality of nodes in the geospatial knowledge graph; and generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein the temporal relationships are relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph.
As claim texts drafted by a set of very minimal limitations (or elements) of each of the three claim categories, dividing a geographical area; generating a plurality of nodes; generating relationships for the plurality of nodes; temporal relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph; are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of processing unit, memory and a computer readable medium which are explicitly generic computing components, including:
“dividing a geographical area into a plurality of cells” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can divide a city or town or a specific geographic area into a plurality of grid or cell using his/her mind. Therefore, the dividing limitation is a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “generating a plurality of nodes on a geospatial knowledge graph, wherein the plurality of nodes corresponds to the plurality of cells”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can draw a graph and put the entity of each cell or grid in a node in the graph by observing and judging in the events using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, generating a plurality of nodes is a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein spatial relationships are represented as edges between the plurality of nodes in the geospatial knowledge graph”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can draw or generate relationship between nodes or cells in the graph according to different entities in the cell with his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, generating relationships is a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein the temporal relationships are relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can draw a graph and mentally can evaluate temporal dimension of an entity by observing or tracking changes in the geographic characteristic over time with his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein the temporal relationships are relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “system comprising one or more computers”, “one or more non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “training machine learning model”. The additional components are generic computer components even being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of receiving necessities for performing an action and providing indication of completed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, processing unit(s), memory and computer readable medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1, 7 and 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there is simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of performing action. The steps, represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting performing action that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are an extension of the abstract idea of claim 1, 7 and 14 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 2014/0279196 A1), in view of Peterson et al (US 2017/0293635 A1).
As per claim 1, Wilson discloses:
- a method comprising: (title, abstract, line 1-10, system ana method for providing spatially segmented recommendation),
- dividing a geographical area into a plurality of cells (Fig. 33, Para [0265] – [0266], segmenting (i.e., dividing) a geographical area into a plurality of grids (i.e., cells)),
- generating a plurality of nodes on a geospatial knowledge graph, wherein the plurality of nodes correspond to the plurality of cells (Fig. 15, 33, Para [0055], [0074] – [0075], [0139], [0263], plurality of nodes corresponding to plurality of zone or area (i.e., cell)
- generating relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein spatial relationships are represented as edges between the plurality of nodes in the geospatial knowledge graph (Fig. 15-16, 33, Fig. 1, item 118, Para [0074], [0089], [0136], [0139], [0264], generating link or connection or relationship between nodes in the database or data repository (i.e., geospatial knowledge graph)),
- and generating relationships for the plurality of nodes (Fig. 15-16, 33, Fig. 1, item 118, Para [0074], [0089], [0136], [0139], [0264], generating link or connection or relationship between nodes),
Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein the temporal relationships are relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph. However, in the same field of endeavor Peterson in an analogous art disclose wherein the temporal relationships are relationships represented as properties of the geospatial knowledge graph (Fig. 1, item 101 - 106, Fig. 8, item 826, 804, Para [0011], [0114], temporal relationship of the spatial data in global grid system (i.e., geospatial knowledge data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temporal relationship of properties in a geospatial graph taught by Peterson as the means to generate the relationship between plurality of nodes in Wilson. Wilson and Peterson are analogous prior art since they both deal with processing geospatial data and connecting nodes and grids in geospatial data. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to search and analyze the geospatial data more efficiently, (Peterson, Para [0109]).
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Peterson discloses:
- generating a snapshot of at least a subset of the geospatial knowledge graph (Para [0149], copying spatial data (i.e., snapshot of geospatial graph)).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses:
- performing a summarization function using a subset of nodes from the geospatial knowledge graph (Fig. 1, Para [0063], [0136], summary with various details such as density of a set or subset of an entity or grid (i.e., summarization function)).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses
- performing a rollup function using a subset of nodes from the geospatial knowledge graph (Para [0058], resolution of a child cell from a parent cell (i.e., roll up function).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses:
- performing a breakdown function using a subset of nodes from the geospatial knowledge graph (Para [0058] – [0059], [0061] – [0062], values in a child and parent hierarchal node are aligned and joined (i.e., breakdown function) together).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses:
- generating a second set of relationships for the plurality of nodes, wherein the second set of relationships comprises inferred relationships (Para [0058], [0101], spatial references (i.e., inferred relationship) in a multi-resolution hierarchical system).
As per claims 7-10,
Claims 7-10 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-4 above.
As per claim 11, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses:
- receiving a selection of a cell (Fig. 3, Para [0147], querying or selection of a cell),
- determining a subset of data associated with the cell (Fig. 3, Para [0084], [0126], [0147], [0160], filtered data or subset of data associated with cell 301,
- determine a parent node for the cell (Para [0058] - [0059], [0073] – [0075], parent child node in hierarchy of cells)
- determine two or more child nodes of the cell (Fig. 1, 5, Para [0011], each cell refine into smaller child cells (i.e., two or more child node)),
- aggregating the subset of data from the two or more child nodes into the parent node (Abstract, line 1-15, Fig. 6, item 502, Para [0014], [0136], [0141], aggregating data from child node or cell to parent node or cell).
As per claims 12-13,
Claims 12-13 are system claims corresponding to method claims 5-6 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 5-6 above.
As per claims 14-18,
Claims 14-18 are computer readable medium claims corresponding to method clams 1-5 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-5 above.
As per claim 19, rejection of claim 18 is incorporated, and further Peterson discloses:
- determining a parent node for a selected cell (Para [0058] - [0059], [0073] – [0075], parent child node in hierarchy of cells),
- determining two or more children nodes of the parent node (Fig. 1, 5, Para [0011], each cell refine into smaller child cells (i.e., two or more child node)),
- and assigning a portion of data to a specific child node of the two or more children nodes based upon a distribution function (Para [0129], [0148], assigning data value).
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is a computer readable medium claims corresponding to method claim 6 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claim 6 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights