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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term Bgraph is not defined in the specification or claims. Therefore, the term is interpreted and rejected as a basic graph.
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 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of obtaining graph, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, obtaining a predetermined reference relationship graph (can be done by a user obtaining a graph), obtaining an update object text and extracting a first update object group in the update object text (can be done by a user obtaining update), recognizing whether the first update object group satisfies a graph update condition of the reference relationship graph (can be done by a user recognizing whether an object is updated) and obtaining an updated target relationship graph by updating the reference relationship graph based on the first update object group in response to recognizing the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition (can be done by a user obtaining an update). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This 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 claim 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, the additional elements amounts 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.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as extracting, obtaining, recognizing, determining, inputting and adding data, which is all mental processing and non-statutory.
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, 5-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tacchi et al. (PGPUB 2017/0329844), hereinafter referenced as Tacchi.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Tacchi discloses a method and device, hereinafter referenced as a method for obtaining a graph, comprising:
at least one processor (processor; p. 0099); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (instructions) executable by the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform a method for training an object group extraction model (memory; p. 0099); comprising
obtaining a predetermined reference relationship graph (fig. 1, element 102 with p. 0036; obtaining graph comprising nodes and edges);
obtaining an update object text and extracting a first update object group in the update object text (fig. 1, element 104 with p. 0036; obtain object details);
recognizing whether the first update object group satisfies a graph update condition of the reference relationship graph (fig. 1, elements 110-112 with p. 0050; amount of similarity); and
obtaining an updated target relationship graph by updating the reference relationship graph based on the first update object group in response to recognizing the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition (fig. 1, element 16 with p. 0019, 0052-0054; generate a new resulting graph).
Regarding claim 5, Tacchi discloses a method wherein recognizing whether the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition of the reference relationship graph, comprises:
obtaining reference association relationships between respective reference objects from the reference relationship graph (fig. 1, elements 110-112 with amount of similarity; p. 0050);
obtaining an update association relationship of the first update object group (relationship between objects; p. 0033-0036, 0063);
obtaining, for any of the reference association relationships, a relationship similarity between the reference association relationship and the update association relationship (relationship between objects; p. 0033-0036, 0063); and
recognizing whether the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition based on the relationship similarity (fig. 1, element 16 with generate resulting graph; p. 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 6, Tacchi discloses a method wherein recognizing whether the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition based on the relationship similarity comprises:
determining and recognizing, in response to the relationship similarity between any reference association relationship and the update association relationship being greater than or equal to a predetermined relationship similarity threshold, that the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition (satisfies a threshold; p. 0008-0009, 0031-0035, 0043, 0054-0059);
determining and recognizing, in response to the relationship similarity between any reference association relationship in the reference relationship graph and the update association relationship being less than the predetermined relationship similarity threshold, that the first update object group does not satisfy the graph update condition (satisfies a threshold; p. 0008-0009, 0031-0035, 0043, 0054-0059).
Regarding claim 7, Tacchi discloses a method wherein obtaining the updated target relationship graph by updating the reference relationship graph based on the first update object group in response to recognizing the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition, comprises:
obtaining, in response to recognizing that the first update object group satisfies the graph update condition, an associated object group for the first update object group in the reference relationship graph (satisfies a threshold; p. 0008-0009, 0031-0035, 0043, 0054-0059);
obtaining an associated object relationship of the associated object group (fig. 1, elements 110-112 with amount of similarity; p. 0050); and
obtaining the target relationship graph by updating the reference relationship graph through merging the first update object group into the associated object group based on the update association relationship and the associated object relationship (generate a graph influenced by parameters; p. 0019).
Regarding claim 8, Tacchi discloses a method wherein obtaining the predetermined reference relationship graph, comprises:
obtaining a predetermined reference object set, and a reference object description of each reference object (generate a graph influenced by parameters; p. 0019);
obtaining reference association relationships between respective reference objects (relation between objects; p. 0036);
inputting the reference object description of each reference object and the reference association relationships between respective reference objects into a graph database Bgraph, and obtaining the reference relationship graph of the reference object set through a graph construction capability of the graph database BGraph (obtaining a graph containing relation between objects; p. 0036, 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 9, Tacchi discloses a method further comprising:
obtaining an object class cluster of a second update object group set, by adding the first update object group to the second update object group set and clustering the second update object group set in response to recognizing that the first update object group does not satisfy the graph update condition (cluster; p. 0089);
obtaining an object label of the object class cluster (cluster; p. 0089); and
adding, in response to the object label satisfying a predetermined addition condition of a reference object set, the object label as a new reference object to the reference object set (object tags; p. 0023-0025).
Regarding claim 10, Tacchi discloses a method wherein after adding, in response to the object label satisfying the predetermined addition condition of the reference object set, the object label as the new reference object to the reference object set, the method further comprises:
obtaining a new reference relationship graph by performing a node update of the reference relationship graph based on the new reference object (fig. 1, element 16 with generate a new resulting graph; p. 0019, 0052-0054).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
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