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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 03/17/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 20, 22 and 24
Claims canceled: 1-20
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 20-24
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. the claim do not recite an Abstract idea Under step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant argues “… at least these claim elements are not processes that can practically be perform in the human mind. A human mind cannot generate queries…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The recited amending language “generating, by a machine learning (ML) of the first data processing system, a query based on a domain of an event associated with trigger and a dynamic knowledge graph” and “generating subsequent query on the response and the evolved dynamic graph” were high level generalization concept. A human mind can formulate query based on the generalized concept. The query was formatted based on request (event trigger) and dynamic knowledge graph (query rule condition). The subsequent query was generated based on the response of first query and evolve knowledge graph (rule changed).
B. the Claims Integrate the Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Pring Two
Applicant’s agues “the Office’s Prong two analysis characterized the processor and memory as “basic computer components” that perform “the abstract idea.” Office action at 4…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The processor and memory are basic computer components which applied on the generic computer. The amended claims language are the additional elements are well understand and conventional activity.
C. The claim amount to “Significantly more” Than an abstract Idea under Step 2B.
Applicant argues “as explained above, Applicant submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, and further integrate any alleged exception…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. As explained above the generating steps are mental process and the processor and memory are basic computer perform abstract idea and the additional elements has not provide significant elements to amount significantly more.
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.
3. Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 20-24 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite:
“generating a query based on a domain of the event associated with the data trigger and a dynamic knowledge graph associated with the domain” is a mental process.
“generating a subsequent query based on the response and the evolved dynamic knowledge graph” is the mental process.
These processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims recites a machine language (ML) model of the first data processing system, a a processor and a memory including instructions which perform process. These are generic computer and/or computer components and software to perform the mental concept.
"receiving, using a data exchange protocol, by a first data processing system from a second data processing system, a data trigger associated with an event within the second data processing system, wherein the first data processing system employs first symmetric keys for data communication and the second data processing system employs second symmetric keys for data communication, and wherein the first symmetric keys are distinct from the second symmetric keys, and wherein the data trigger is received without application of the second symmetric keys” is a information providing information to another for services.
“transmitting the query to the second data processing system” is a process of providing information for data retrieval process.
“Receiving a response corresponding to the query from the second data processing system in a pre-defined encoded format” the process receiving information from a retrieval process.
“Transmitting, using the data exchange protocol by the first data processing system to the second data processing system, a data snippet, wherein the data snippet is representative of a data superset within the first data processing system corresponding to the data trigger, and wherein the data snippet is transmitted without application of the first symmetric keys” is the concept of providing information which receive from query retrieval.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f). 2106.05(g)-Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
As to claims 21 and 23, the limitation "wherein each of the first data processing system and the second data processing system is Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) enabled" is only further defined what first data processing and second data processing is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. The claims 20-24 will be allowed when applicant has overcome the 101 rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 20, 22 and 26, examiner agreed with applicant’s argument “Muriqi is directed to a social network platform with network-based rewards, involving content referral, advertising compensation, and blockchain-based token transactions. See Muriqi, Abstract, [0025], [0033]. Muriqi contains no disclosure of a machine learning model that generates queries based on a dynamic knowledge graph, evolves the graph based on responses, generates subsequent queries from the evolved graph, or receives responses in a pre-defined encoded format. Ika is directed to a healthcare actionable intelligence data generation and distribution system that generates healthcare reports and distributes secure report access links to requesting entities. Ika likewise contains no disclosure of any of the above-identified limitations. Therefore, neither Muriqi nor Ika discloses the claimed subject matter of the amended claims.”
Dependent claims 21 and 23 are allowed under the same reason as to claims 20 and 22.
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
5. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights