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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed December 29, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on March 30, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ argument are persuasive and the art rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicants argue that graph database can be deemed integrated into a practical application and conventionally requires a database system including various physical entities, such as a server, as storage device and a network device.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s argue Step 2A Prong 2 and provides examples of limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Applicants also explain that the instant claims provide a solution to problems, thereby integrating the exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technical field. However, the steps which lead to the improvement and the improvement itself is not explicitly recited the claims. Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The specification nor the claims reflect the improvements claimed in the arguments. In the instant claims, the abstract idea results in an output of generic “information” that is not utilized in any particular fashion or for any particular purpose. It does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. While the claimed invention may have some use in technical fields, that use or implementation in particular technology or technological environment has not been recited in the claimed invention. Absent these recitations, the only claim elements that remain are generic computer components that do not qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
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, 3-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 — Claim directed to an abstract idea (Alice Step 2A)
Claim 1 recites, in essence, a method for obtaining a graph comprising:
Obtaining data
Recognizing data
Extracting data
These steps are paradigmatic information-processing operations: natural language understanding, data categorization, graph manipulation and similarity search. They reflect mental/abstract processes and methods of organizing information and selecting relevant data — i.e., an abstract idea (comparable to conventional search, classification, and filtering operations).
The present claim does not recite a comparable specific improvement to computer functionality; rather, it recites a series of high-level information processing steps.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (information processing / organizing human activity / mental processes) and thus recites a judicial exception. Step 2 — Claim lacks an “inventive concept” (Alice Step 2B)
Having determined the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the next step is to examine whether the claim recites additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1’s additional elements are conventional, generic computer components and high-level functional steps:
“a model” is recited at a high level without details of architecture, training, or non-conventional operation;
“graph database” and “similarity comparison” are generic data storage and search constructs commonly used for embedding-based retrieval;
all steps are described functionally rather than as specific technical implementations (no non-generic data structures, algorithms, system architecture, or claimed improvements in performance, security, accuracy, or efficiency).
Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components or invoking a “model” or “graph” does not constitute an inventive concept. The claim lacks specific, unconventional limitations such as:
novel data structures or indexing arrangements that materially improve search/index efficiency;
a non-conventional arrangement of known components providing a technical improvement;
specific low-level algorithmic steps, parameterized ANN/indexing techniques, or architectural features yielding demonstrable computer performance gains; or
secure/enclave/on-device processing or concrete privacy mechanisms.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as extracting, obtaining, recognizing, determining, inputting and adding data, which is all mental processing and non-statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 and 22-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
As for independent claim 11, it recites a method for training an object group extraction model. Prior art such of record discloses a similar method, but fails to teach the claims in combination with obtaining a candidate object group extraction model to be trained and a sample object text, obtaining a predetermined reference object set to extract a sample object group from the sample object text and obtaining a trained target object group extraction model by performing model training on the candidate object group extraction model based on the sample object text and the sample object group until the end of the training.
Dependent claims 12-16 and 22-23 are allowed because they further limit their parent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657