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
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 112(b) are maintained.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Claim rejections 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that original claim 1 recites "unified access interface", "interface for attribute community search provided for a user" and "user interface", which implicitly discloses that the method in claim 1 is performed by a computer. Therefore, the applicant has added the feature "by the computer" in claim 1. Applicant also argues that the additional elements "receiving, by the computer, a community structure parameter k value and a search node q through an interface for attribute community search provided for a user", "returning the community that contains the search node q and satisfies structural cohesion and optimal attribute cohesion" and "performing data processing, subgraph construction, and algorithm operation and maintenance search on the attribute information network according to the community structure parameter k value and the search node q", integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is to say, after receiving the community structure parameter k value and the search node q from the user, data processing, subgraph construction, and algorithm operation and maintenance search are performed on the attribute information network according to the community structure parameter k value and the search node q, to obtain a queried community (i.e., the community that contains the search node q and satisfies structural cohesion and optimal attribute cohesion). Therefore, the above-mentioned additional features integrate the judicial exception into the practical application (i.e., attribute community search) (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 2106.04(d) recites that:
“The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (Emphasis added).
In fact, the claim recites limitations of “obtaining, by a computer, a data relation of a target domain” “receiving, by the computer, a community structure parameter k value and a search node q through an interface for attribute community search provided for a user;” “loading the attribute information network over a unified access interface of the computer, performing data processing, subgraph construction, and algorithm operation and maintenance search on the attribute information network according to the community structure parameter k value and the search node q;” “returning a community that contains the search node q and satisfies structural cohesion and optimal attribute cohesion;” and “performing rendering and interaction on a user interface of the computer, rendering a community search result returned by the interface into a dynamic community network diagram in a graphical manner, and presenting the dynamic community network diagram to the user;” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). In addition, the additional elements of using a “computer”, a “processor” and a “memory” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues that compared with existing attribute information network community search methods that do not consider meaning relations between attributes, the computer constructs a relation tree to describe inclusion relations between attributes and defines attribute scores to describe attribute cohesion and subgraph attribute cohesion between nodes when the computer executing the method in amended claim 1, which changes its query functionality. Therefore, the above-mentioned additional features are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and integrate the judicial exception into the practical application (i.e., improvement of the computer's attribute community search function), which simplifies user operations when conducting attribute community search and enables community search results more realistic (Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP recites that:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), Emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully submits that the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner such as reducing user input and ensures uniqueness of a search result community and optimal attribute cohesion, and has a significant improvement in the cohesion of the result community compared to the existing methods. Therefore, the examiner should not determine the claims improve technology.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the score definition” in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependence claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on dependency to independence claims 1 and 6.
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, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 6:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 6 recites “A system”. The claim recites the system comprising a processor and a memory and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitations “constructing”, “performing”, “calculating”, “removing” and “repeating” which specifically recite “constructing an attribute information network of the target domain in a form of a graph;” “step S3-1, performing core decomposition on the attribute information network G to obtain a subgraph H' with a largest k-core, the k-core indicating a community where all nodes have degrees greater than or equal to k, which comprises: calculating a degree of each node in the attribute information network, that is, a number of edges connected to each node; removing all nodes in the attribute information network with degrees less than a predetermined threshold k and edges connected thereto; and repeating the removing until there are no more nodes with a degree less than k, thereby obtaining a remaining network structure as the subgraph H' with the largest k-core;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “computer”, a “processor” and a “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “constructing”, “performing”, “calculating”, “removing” and “repeating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating a graph of an attribute information network of a target domain, and generating a subgraph H' with a largest k-core from the attribute information network G by: calculating a degree of each node in the attribute information network which is a number of edges connected to each node, removing all nodes in the attribute information network with degrees less than a predetermined threshold k and edges connected thereto, and repeating the removing until there are no more nodes with a degree less than k.
Furthermore, the claims also recite the limitations “calculating”, “defining” , “pre-constructing” , “calculating” and “calculating” which specifically recite “step S3-2, calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph according to an attribute relation, comprising: defining a relation tree T, wherein the relation tree T defines an inclusion relation between attributes, and a meaning of a parent node attribute comprises a meaning of a child node attribute; and pre-constructing a distance index between attributes through the relation tree T, that is, calculating a distance between any two attributes on the relation tree; and calculating a score between a node and a search node through the score definition, marking the score as a score of the node, and repeatedly calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “computer”, a “processor” and a “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “calculating”, “defining” , “pre-constructing” , “calculating” and “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph comprising: defining a relation tree T defines an inclusion relation between attributes and a meaning of a parent node attribute comprises a meaning of a child node attribute, pre-constructing a distance index between attributes through the relation tree T, by: calculating a distance between any two attributes on the relation tree; calculating a score between a node and a search node through a score definition, marking the score for the node, and repeatedly calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph.
In addition, the claims also recite the limitations “marking”, “deleting” and “repeating” which specifically recite “step S3-3, after obtaining the scores of all the nodes, marking a node with a lowest score at current time, and deleting the node, in which case numbers of nodes and edges in the subgraph are n and m; if m - n < 2 * (k^2 - k) - 1, which indicates that the subgraph does not contain the k-core, exiting the method for attribute community search after adding the node with the lowest score; otherwise, repeating to perform core decomposition and delete a node with the lowest score until the subgraph no longer contains the k-core, in which case a community is returned as a search result.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “computer”, a “processor” and a “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “marking”, “deleting” and “repeating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper after obtaining the scores of all the nodes, marking a node with a lowest score and deleting the node, in which case numbers of nodes and edges in the subgraph are n and m; if m - n < 2 * (k^2 - k) - 1, which indicates that the subgraph does not contain the k-core, exiting the method for attribute community search, otherwise, repeating to perform core decomposition and delete a node with the lowest score until the subgraph no longer contains the k-core, in which case a community is returned as a search result. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 6 recite the additional elements “obtaining, by a computer, a data relation of a target domain” “receiving, by the computer, a community structure parameter k value and a search node q through an interface for attribute community search provided for a user;” “loading the attribute information network over a unified access interface of the computer, performing data processing, subgraph construction, and algorithm operation and maintenance search on the attribute information network according to the community structure parameter k value and the search node q;” “returning a community that contains the search node q and satisfies structural cohesion and optimal attribute cohesion;” and “performing rendering and interaction on a user interface of the computer, rendering a community search result returned by the interface into a dynamic community network diagram in a graphical manner, and presenting the dynamic community network diagram to the user;” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 1 recites the limitations “receiving, by the computer, a community structure parameter k value and a search node q through an interface for attribute community search provided for a user;” and “returning a community that contains the search node q and satisfies structural cohesion and optimal attribute cohesion;” The limitations amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “computer”, a “processor” and a “memory” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “wherein nodes of the attribute information network in the step S1 represent entities in the target domain, and an edge between any two nodes represent a relation between two corresponding entities” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “constructing a mapping relation between the nodes and attribute lists of the attribute information network, wherein each entity node corresponds to a series of attributes, indicating that the entity node has the attribute list; and constructing a relation tree on the basis of an actual attribute relation according to all attributes of the target domain” which further elaborate on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on the claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “defining the relation tree… after obtaining the attribute distance index, traversing nodes…” which further elaborate on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior arts of made record fail to teach calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph according to an attribute relation, comprising: defining a relation tree T, wherein the relation tree T defines an inclusion relation between attributes, and a meaning of a parent node attribute comprises a meaning of a child node attribute; and pre-constructing a distance index between attributes through the relation tree T, that is, calculating a distance between any two attributes on the relation tree; and calculating a score between a node and a search node through the score definition, marking the score as a score of the node, and repeatedly calculating scores of all the nodes in the subgraph; and after obtaining the scores of all the nodes, marking a node with a lowest score at current time, and deleting the node, in which case numbers of nodes and edges in the subgraph are n and m, if m-n <2* (k^2 -k) - 1, which indicates that the subgraph does not contain the k-core, exiting the method for attribute community search after adding the node with the lowest score; otherwise, repeating to perform core decomposition and delete a node with the lowest score until the subgraph no longer contains the k-core, in which case a community is returned as a search result.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghoting et al. (US 2019/0384861) discloses that one or more computations for traversing the graph may be applied to the in-memory representation to generate a near-real-time ranking of candidates for recommending to a member of the online network. Such computations may iterate through subsets of nodes and edges in the graph instead of utilizing conventional graph-querying techniques that generate query results by performing joins and filtering on nodes sand edges that match a set of query parameters.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights