DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/095,775 filed 3/31/2025.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cato et al. (US Patent Pub 2008/0000961), in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Specification at Figs. 1-3; paras. 0001-0021).
Priority
The application’s claim of priority to US Provisional Application 63/631,184 filed 4/8/2024 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written as a claim. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected for the following informalities:
In para. 0018, “Node “” (204)” should be “Node “d” (204)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the conditional probability distributions” in the third limitation. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors” in the last limitation. It is unclear whether these are the original “conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors” or the “updated conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors.”. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites “the observation” in line 1. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the co-occurrence of events” in lines 1-2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the dimensions of a vector, matrix, or tensor” in line 2. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a probability distribution” in line 1. It is unclear if this is a new “probability distribution” or it is referencing the “conditional probability distribution” of claim 1. Clarification is required.
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 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. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) defining factor graph document databases for two or more probabilistic agents encoding one or more conditional probabilities, wherein the conditional probabilities are encoded in conditional probability vectors, matrices or tensors, (2) increasing counts in one or more cells of the vectors, matrices or tensors of the factor graph document database of one or more of the probabilistic agents when said one or more probabilistic agents receives new information, (3) renormalizing the conditional probability distributions in one or more of the factor graph document databases of the probabilistic agents, (4) combining the updated conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors of all of the factor graph document databases of the probabilistic agents by means of vector, matrix, or tensor multiplication operations, and (5) replacing the conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors of each probabilistic agent with the new vectors, matrices, or tensors resulting from the multiplication operation.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Supreme Court has treated claims that include multiple exceptions in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). As there are no bright lines between the types of judicial exceptions, and many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions, MPEP 2106.04, subsection I instructs examiners to “identify . . . the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) [that] aligns with at least one judicial exception.”
Limitation (1) is directed to defining factor graph document databases for two probabilistic agents encoding conditional probabilities in vectors, matrices, or tensors. This limitation is directed to a mental step that can be performed by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool to perform the “defining”. Limitation (2) is directed to a mathematical operation of “increasing counts” in a cell of one of the vectors, matrices, or tensors in response to a mental step of observing that an agent has received new information. Limitations (3) and (4) are directed to mathematical calculations of renormalizing of the conditional probabilities of the agents and multiplication operations. Limitation (5) is directed to a step of IESA of updating data, which is storing information in memory.
The recited factor graph document databases and agents are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic components performing generic computer functions.
As discussed above, the Court has treated claims that include multiple exceptions in the same manner as claims reciting a single exception. Here, the mathematical calculations are treated as mental steps of performing the mathematical calculations, which seem to be simple operations of addition and multiplication. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. As discussed above, limitations (1) through (4) are directed to mental steps that can be practically performed by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. None of the limitations recite specifics as to how any of the steps are particularly performed in a manner that adequately demonstrates an asserted improvement. Applicant’s specification notes that a “factor graph document database” and “agents” are known in the art. Spec at paras. 0004, 0015. The steps otherwise simple mathematical calculations that can be performed by a person. Lastly, limitation (5) is directed to a step of IESA. While claim 1 recite additional components in the form of a “factor graph document database” and “agents”, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, limitations (1) through (4) do not recite meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Simple mathematical calculations that can be performed in the mind does not amount to an inventive step. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, limitation (5) is directed to IESA of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 2
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the new information corresponds to the observation of the co- occurrence of events mapped by the dimensions of a vector, matrix, or tensor of the factor graph document database by means of inputs coming from one or more physical or virtual sensors of one or more probabilistic agents. The additional limitations are interpreted to mean that the new information are observations from physical or virtual sensors of the agents. The limitation are directed IESA in the form of pre-solution activity of gathering data from sensors. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 2 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the renormalization of a probability distribution is achieved by summing over all the values of the cells of the vector, matrix or tensor forming the probability distribution, and by, (2) dividing each cell value by the sum of all the cells, or by an equivalent renormalization method. Limitation (1) describes a mathematical calculation of summing, which can be performed in the mind of a person. Similarly, limitation (2) describes a mathematical calculation of division, which can also be performed in the mind of a person. Moreover, the limitation ends with “or by an equivalent renormalization method” which is interpreted as any other mathematical calculation that would “normalize” the values. Since these additional limitations do not recite meaningful limitations on the abstract idea, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-3 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cato et al. (US Patent Pub 2008/0000961) (Cato), in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Specification at Figs. 1-3; paras. 0001-0022) (AAPA).
In regards to claim 1, Cato discloses a method of interagent communication in probabilistic agents, comprising:
defining probability tables for two or more probabilistic agents encoding one or more conditional probabilities (Cato at paras. 0032)1,
increasing counts of one or more of the probabilistic agents when said one or more probabilistic agents receives new information (Cato at paras. 0029, 0033)2,
renormalizing the conditional probability distributions of the probabilistic agents (Cato at paras. 0040-41)3,
combining the updated conditional probability of the probabilistic agents (Cato at paras. 0040-51),
replacing the conditional probability of each probabilistic agent with the new results. Cat at para. 0041.4
Cato does not expressly disclose a factor graph document database, wherein the conditional probabilities are encoded in conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors, the increasing of counts is in one or more cells of the vectors, matrices, or tensors of the factor graph document database, the renormalizing is in one or more of the factor graph document databases, the combining is of vectors, matrices, or tensors of all of the factor graph document databases by means of vector, matrix, or tensor multiplication operations, and the replacing is of conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors. In other words, Cato does not expressly disclose the factor graph document database and storing the conditional probabilities as vectors, matrices, or tensors.
AAPA discloses a factor graph document database as known in the art. Spec at Fig. 3; para. 0015. AAPA further discloses conditional probabilities are presented as mappings in matrices or in tensors. Spec. at Fig. 3; para. 0020. Since the probabilities can be presented as matrices, matrix multiplication, as AAPA further discloses, can be in the form of Hamadard product, which is known in the art. However, the limitation does not limit to any particular type of matrix multiplication.
Cato and AAPA are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of conditional probabilities and updating them based on new information.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cato by adding the features of a factor graph document database, wherein the conditional probabilities are encoded in conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors, the increasing of counts is in one or more cells of the vectors, matrices, or tensors of the factor graph document database, the renormalizing is in one or more of the factor graph document databases, the combining is of vectors, matrices, or tensors of all of the factor graph document databases by means of vector, matrix, or tensor multiplication operations, and the replacing is of conditional probability vectors, matrices, or tensors, as disclosed by AAPA.
The motivation for doing so would have been because they are known in the art and factor graph document databases allow for the inferences of values of any desired node. AAPA at para. 0015.
In regards to claim 2, Cato in view of AAPA discloses a method of claim 1, wherein the new information corresponds to the observation of the co-occurrence of events mapped by the dimensions of a vector, matrix, or tensor of the factor graph document database by means of input coming from one or more physical or virtual sensors of one or more probabilistic agents. Cato at Fig. 3; para. 0028-29.5
In regards to claim 3, Cato in view of AAPA discloses a method of claim 1, wherein the renormalization of a probability distribution is achieved by summing over all of the values of the cells of the vector, matrix, or tensor forming the probability distribution, and by dividing each cell value by the sum of all the cells, or by an equivalent renormalization method. Cato at para. 0041.6
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Yang (US Patent Pub 2017/0364819) discloses a system and method for root cause analysis in a probabilistic communication network.
Van Gael et al. (US Patent Pub 2011/0066577) discloses a system and method for machine learning using relational databases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 The probabilities table is stored as matrix. It has multiple rows and columns (i.e., two or more probabilistic agents).
2 Occurrences are increased with new information.
3 The probability files has its data normalized.
4 The table is updated with the normalized result.
5 New information comes from beacons (i.e., physical sensors) of the system.
6 The probabilities are normalized to give meaning to the new information. Since the limitation says “an equivalent normalization method” it is interpreted that any method that normalizes meets the limitation.