DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on June 18, 2026 for Continuation Application # 19/094,733 filed on March 28, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The Provisional Application# 63/351,812 filed on June 13, 2022.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and also claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-18 rejected under Double Patenting.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are canceled.
No claims are newly added.
Obviousness Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,271,423 B2 (‘423).
With respect to the above, the instant Application are performing an obvious variant of the features claimed in the ‘423 application.
19/090,733
12,271,423 B2
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
A computerized method comprising:
receiving a plurality of alerts;
wherein each alert of the plurality of alerts corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data, and wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert;
computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts; and
generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
A computerized method comprising: receiving incoming data including event data;
extracting alerts from the event data based on a graph ontology, wherein each alert corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of the received incoming data;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert extracted from the event data according to the graph ontology, wherein the graph-based dense representations associated with the alerts are stored in a vector database;
computing relatedness scores between each alert of the extracted alerts; generating a listing of the alerts related to a selected alert, wherein the listing of the alerts is ordered by corresponding relatedness scores between the alerts and the selected alert; and generating a graphical user interface illustrating the listing of the alerts related to the selected alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
Claim 8
Claim 8
A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: receiving a plurality of alerts, wherein each alert of the plurality of alerts corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data, and wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert, computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, and generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: receiving incoming data including event data; extracting alerts from the event data based on a graph ontology, wherein each alert corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of the received incoming data; generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert extracted from the event data according to the graph ontology, wherein the graph-dense representations associated with the alerts are stored in a vector database; computing relatedness scores between each alert of the extracted alerts; generating a listing of the alerts related to a selected alert, wherein the listing of the alerts is ordered by corresponding relatedness scores between the alerts and the selected alert; and generating a graphical user interface illustrating the listing of the events related to the selected alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
Claim 15
Claim 15
A non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause performance of operations including: receiving a plurality of alerts;
wherein each alert of the plurality of alerts corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data, and wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology; generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert; computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts; and generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
A non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause performance of operations including: receiving incoming data including event data; extracting alerts from the event data based on a graph ontology, wherein each alert corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of the received incoming data;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert extracted from the event data according to the graph ontology, wherein the graph-dense representations associated with the alerts are stored in a vector database; computing relatedness scores between each alert of the extracted alerts; generating a listing of the alerts related to a selected alert, wherein the listing of events is ordered by corresponding relatedness scores between the alerts and the selected alert; and generating a graphical user interface illustrating the listing of the alerts related to the selected alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if theremaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter. Doing so would have enhanced the ‘423 patent.
With respect to claims 2-5, 9-12 and 16-18 they are also rejected since this claims are similar to 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 of the ‘423 patent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claims 1-20 recite a method, device and readable medium respectively.
The analysis of claims 1, 8 and 15 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “receiving a plurality of alerts;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert;
computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts; and
generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of applying neural network to learn alerts to a dashboard (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer” and “readable medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “receiving a plurality of alerts;
generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert;
computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts; and
generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., displaying data); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., visualization model) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and generating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “
Claims 2, 9, 16 recites, training the neural network to produce graph-based dense representations, wherein the training is performed on a corpus of metapaths.
Claims 3, 10, 16 recites, building the corpus through performance of uniform metapath guided random walks through a set of known graph-based dense representations.
Claims 4, 11, 17 recites, wherein each graph-based dense representation is a node embedding being a fixed length vector.
Claims 5, 12, 18 recites, receiving the user input corresponding to selection of the first alert; and generating a second listing of alerts that are related to the first alert, wherein the second listing is ordered by corresponding relatedness scores between alerts included in the second listing and the first alert.
Claims 6, 13, 19 recites, wherein each alert corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data.
Claims 7, 14, 20 recites, wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of applying neural network to learn alerts to a dashboard (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computer” and “readable medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “Claims 2, 9, 16 recites, training the neural network to produce graph-based dense representations, wherein the training is performed on a corpus of metapaths.
Claims 3, 10, 16 recites, building the corpus through performance of uniform metapath guided random walks through a set of known graph-based dense representations.
Claims 4, 11, 17 recites, wherein each graph-based dense representation is a node embedding being a fixed length vector.
Claims 5, 12, 18 recites, receiving the user input corresponding to selection of the first alert; and generating a second listing of alerts that are related to the first alert, wherein the second listing is ordered by corresponding relatedness scores between alerts included in the second listing and the first alert.
Claims 6, 13, 19 recites, wherein each alert corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data.
Claims 7, 14, 20 recites, wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., displaying data); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts“, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., visualization model) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and generating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Response to Arguments
Examiner maintained Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection due to missing Terminal Disclaimer as applicant claimed to file as stated in the response filed on June 18, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed on June 18, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of generating a graph-based dense representation of each alert of the plurality of alerts including processing of each alert with a neural network, wherein a result of processing an individual alert by the neural network is a graph-based dense representation of the individual alert. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as generating a graph-based dense representation, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
receiving a plurality of alerts, wherein each alert of the plurality of alerts corresponds to an event that is associated with a notification policy and includes information resulting from processing of received incoming data, and
wherein the plurality of alerts are extracted from the received incoming data according to a graph ontology;
computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts; and
generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input corresponding to selection of a first alert, wherein the graphical user interface is rendered on a display screen
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claim 1 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms as computing relatedness scores between at least a subset of the plurality of alerts.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; generating a graphical user interface illustrating a listing of at least a subset of the plurality of alerts. These limitations are directed to realizing the listing things on a paper with pen using human mind in a organized way using a computer system. Executing the using a model to compare is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the graphical interface is at most insignificant post solution activity of generating a graph-based dense representation. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable storage medium" and a "computerized method" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea such as neural network of processing of each alert. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of representing alerts as a graph-based dense representation, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of organizing alerts in a graph-based dense representation with a neural network, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-18 are allowed over prior-art. However, applicant need to overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, 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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights