CTNF 19/170,106 CTNF 81690 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 and 01/15/2026 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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. Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B). In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically determining similarity between documents. The examiner further notes that claims 1-5 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for determining similarity between documents which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the determination of the similarity between documents, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the determination of the similarity between documents. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of determining similarity between documents. The examiner notes that the claimed invention determines the similarity between documents. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in determining similarity between documents, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document; creating a first graph structure from the first document; storing a second graph structure; and comparing the first graph structure and the second graph structure to perform document retrieval; wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label; wherein the label comprises a plurality of tokens divided from the first document; wherein the label comprises a semantic relation; and wherein a direction of the edge of the first graph structure is determined based on the semantic relation. These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically determining similarity between documents. Determining similarity between documents has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to determining similarity between documents. Moreover, the providing of an input can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the creation of a first graph structure can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the comparing of graph structures can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the defining of an edge of a graph structure to be based off of tokens from a document that is a semantic relation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determination of a direction of an edge can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of determining similarity between documents, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “one or more processors” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of determining similarity between documents. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the storage of a graph structure is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the determining similarity between documents of the steps of claim 1 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 2 is directed towards the vectorization of graphs for subsequent similarity comparisons which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 3 is directed towards the supplying of defined information which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, claim 4 is directed towards the defining of a semantic relation which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 5 is directed towards the generation of a new graph which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 6. 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 conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). 7. 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 8. Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,023 (herein referred to as Momo 023 ). 9. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Claim 1 of the instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Momo 023 . Both claims recite substantially similar limitations regarding the comparison of graphs. Application Claim 1 U.S. Patent 12,299,023 Claim 1 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having A) instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document; B) creating a first graph structure from the first document; C) storing a second graph structure; and D) comparing the first graph structure and the second graph structure to perform document retrieval; E) wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label; F) wherein the label comprises a plurality of tokens divided from the first document; G) wherein the label comprises a semantic relation; and H) wherein a direction of the edge of the first graph structure is determined based on the semantic relation. 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having A) instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document ( Corresponds to Limitation A ); B) creating a first graph structure from the first document ( Corresponds to Limitation B ); C) storing a second graph structure ( Corresponds to Limitation C ); D) vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure; E) comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval ( Corresponds to Limitation D ); F) supplying information; and G) dividing the first document into a plurality of tokens ( Corresponds to Limitation F ); H) wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label ( Corresponds to Limitations E & F ); I) wherein the label comprises the plurality of tokens ( Corresponds to Limitation F ); and J) wherein, in a case where the label has an antonym, generating a new graph structure by reversing a direction of the edge of the first graph structure and replacing the label of the edge by the antonym ( Corresponds to Limitations G & H ). However, the cited patent of Momo 023 also compares graphs. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Claim 2 of the instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Momo 023 . Both claims recite substantially similar limitations regarding the vectorization of graphs for subsequent comparison. Application Claim 2 U.S. Patent 12,299,023 Claim 1 2. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, A) the operations further comprising: vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure; and B) comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval. 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having A) instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document; B) creating a first graph structure from the first document; C) storing a second graph structure; D) vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure ( Corresponds to Limitation A ); E) comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval ( Corresponds to Limitation B ); F) supplying information; and G) dividing the first document into a plurality of tokens; H) wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label; I) wherein the label comprises the plurality of tokens; and J) wherein, in a case where the label has an antonym, generating a new graph structure by reversing a direction of the edge of the first graph structure and replacing the label of the edge by the antonym. However, the cited patent of Momo 023 also compares graphs via vectorization. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Claim 5 of the instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Momo 023 . Both claims recite substantially similar limitations regarding the generation of a new graph. Application Claim 5 U.S. Patent 12,299,023 Claim 1 5. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, A) wherein, in a case where the label has an antonym, generating a new graph structure by reversing the direction of the edge of the first graph structure and replacing the label of the edge by the antonym. 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having A) instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document; B) creating a first graph structure from the first document; C) storing a second graph structure; D) vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure; E) comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval; F) supplying information; and G) dividing the first document into a plurality of tokens; H) wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label; I) wherein the label comprises the plurality of tokens; and J) wherein, in a case where the label has an antonym, generating a new graph structure by reversing a direction of the edge of the first graph structure and replacing the label of the edge by the antonym ( Corresponds to Limitation A ). However, the cited patent of Momo 023 also generates a new graph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 10. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 11. 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, 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 12. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim s 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2014052863A (Published on 20 March 2014) (Machine Translation Provided)) in view of Chitrapura et al. (Article entitled “Node Ranking in Labeled Directed Graphs”, dated 13 November 2004) . 14. Regarding claim 1, Yabe teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: A) instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document (Page 2); B) creating a first graph structure from the first document (Page 2); C) storing a second graph structure (Page 2); D) comparing the first graph structure and the second graph structure to perform document retrieval (Pages 2 and 5); F) wherein the label comprises a plurality of tokens divided from the first document (Page 2, Figure 4); G) wherein the label comprises a semantic relation (Page 2, Figure 4); and H) wherein a direction of the edge of the first graph structure is determined based on the semantic relation (Page 2, Figure 4). The examiner notes that Yabe teaches “instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processers, cause the one or more processers to perform operations for document retrieval, the operations comprising: inputting a first document” as “The operation screen of the information terminal 100 is provided with an input unit for inputting the searched search key document. The search key document input to the input unit is transmitted to the document search apparatus 10 via the Internet or an intranet” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the input unit of Yabe provides for the inputting of a search key document (i.e. the claimed first document). The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “creating a first graph structure from the first document” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2) and “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship. When a single document includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the directed graph generation unit 14 of Yabe generates a directed graph (i.e. the claimed first graph structure) of the inputted search document (i.e. the claimed first document). The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “storing a second graph structure” as “The document information storage unit 11 is configured by a storage medium such as an HDD, and stores document information to be searched. The document information is a document centered on texts created in various formats such as Word (registered trademark) and PDF. The document information storage unit 11 stores a plurality of pieces of document information in advance. In general, document information is composed of a plurality of sentences” (Page 2) and “Similarly, the directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for the document information to be searched. When the document information to be searched includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated in association with one document information. Note that the directed graph of the document information to be searched is not generated every time the search is performed, but the generated directed graph is preferably stored in the storage medium so that it can be reused at another search opportunity” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the storage of directed graphs of documents to be searched (i.e. the claimed second graph structure(s)) teaches the claimed storing of a second graph struture. The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “comparing the first graph structure and the second graph structure to perform document retrieval” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship” (Page 2), and “Then, the similarity calculation unit 16 calculates the similarity for each search target document from the comparison between the search key document and each directed graph of the search target document (step S108)” (Page 5). The examiner further notes that calculation of a similarity between the generated directed graphs (i.e. the claimed first graph structure(s)) of the input search document and the generated directed graphs of each stored document (i.e. the claimed second graph structure(s)) teaches the claimed comparison. The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “wherein the label comprises a plurality of tokens divided from the first document” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship” (Page 2), and “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship. When a single document includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated. In the directed graph, a phrase included in a sentence becomes a node, and a dependency relationship between the phrases is expressed as an edge. The edge has a direction from the first phrase to the second phrase when a certain first phrase relates to another second phrase. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the generated directed graph” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the generation of a directed graph entails the parsing of the example input sentence (i.e. first document) into multiple nodes connected via edges. The example parsing into nodes of multiple phrases (where each node has a “label”) connected via edges in Figure 4 teaches the claimed label comprising a plurality of tokens divided from the first document in the broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “wherein the label comprises a semantic relation” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship” (Page 2), and “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship. When a single document includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated. In the directed graph, a phrase included in a sentence becomes a node, and a dependency relationship between the phrases is expressed as an edge. The edge has a direction from the first phrase to the second phrase when a certain first phrase relates to another second phrase. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the generated directed graph” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the instant specification merely mentions a semantic relation without defining what such a semantic relation constitutes. Thus, the labels of Yabe that each “relate” to one another teach the claimed semantic relation in the broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “wherein a direction of the edge of the first graph structure is determined based on the semantic relation” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship” (Page 2), and “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship. When a single document includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated. In the directed graph, a phrase included in a sentence becomes a node, and a dependency relationship between the phrases is expressed as an edge. The edge has a direction from the first phrase to the second phrase when a certain first phrase relates to another second phrase. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the generated directed graph” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the direction of an edge is based on how a first node (with a label) “relates” to a second node (with a label). Moreover, the instant specification merely mentions a semantic relation without defining what such a semantic relation constitutes. Thus, the direction of the edge is based on the semantic relation of the labels of the nodes. Yabe does not explicitly teach: E) wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label. Chitrapura , however, teaches “wherein an edge of the first graph structure comprises a label” as “We are given a labeled directed graph…L E is a label function that maps edges to labels” (Page 599, Section 2). The examiner further notes that although the primary reference of Yabe clearly teaches that directed graphs are labeled, only the nodes of such directed graphs are labeled. Nevertheless, the secondary reference of Chitrapura teaches the concept of edges of a directed graph being labeled. The combination would result in labeling the edges of Yabe such that the labels comprise a semantic relation (which the labels of Yabe have in the broadest reasonable interpretation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Chitrapura’s would have allowed Yabe’s to provide a method for improving the efficiency in ranking elements of a directed graph, as noted by Chitrapura (Page 597, Abstract). Regarding claim 3, Yabe further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: A) the operations further comprising supplying information (Pages 2 and 4); B) wherein the information comprises a similarity result calculated from the first document and the second document (Pages 2, 4, and 5). The examiner notes that Yabe teaches “the operations further comprising supplying information” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2) and “the display control unit 17 determines a search target document to be displayed as a search result. As a determination criterion, for example, a method of selecting a document having a similarity degree equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold, a method of selecting a document having a similarity degree up to the top N (N is a positive integer), or the like can be employed. The display control unit 17 generates the document selected in this way as a display screen as shown in FIG. 7, for example, and displays it on the screen of the information terminal 100” (Page 4). The examiner further notes that the display of search results of Yabe teaches the claimed supplying of information. The examiner further notes that Yabe teaches “wherein the information comprises a similarity result calculated from the first document and the second document” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “the display control unit 17 determines a search target document to be displayed as a search result. As a determination criterion, for example, a method of selecting a document having a similarity degree equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold, a method of selecting a document having a similarity degree up to the top N (N is a positive integer), or the like can be employed. The display control unit 17 generates the document selected in this way as a display screen as shown in FIG. 7, for example, and displays it on the screen of the information terminal 100” (Page 4), and “Then, the similarity calculation unit 16 calculates the similarity for each search target document from the comparison between the search key document and each directed graph of the search target document (step S108). Then, the display control unit 17 determines a search target document to be displayed based on the calculated similarity, and displays the search result (step S109)” (Page 5). The examiner further notes that the display of search results (which is based off of a similarity result obtained via comparison between the input search document and the stored search documents) of Yabe teaches the claimed information. Regarding claim 4, Yabe further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: A) wherein the semantic relation is a positional relation (Page 2, Figure 4). The examiner notes that Yabe teaches “wherein the semantic relation is a positional relation” as “the document search device 10 includes a document information storage unit 11, a search document acquisition unit 12, a dependency analysis unit 13, a directed graph generation unit 14, a synonym addition unit 15, a similarity calculation unit 16, and a display” (Page 2), “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship” (Page 2), and “The directed graph generation unit 14 generates a directed graph for each sentence based on the analyzed dependency relationship. When a single document includes a plurality of sentences, a plurality of directed graphs are generated. In the directed graph, a phrase included in a sentence becomes a node, and a dependency relationship between the phrases is expressed as an edge. The edge has a direction from the first phrase to the second phrase when a certain first phrase relates to another second phrase. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the generated directed graph” (Page 2). The examiner further notes that the instant specification merely mentions a semantic relation without defining what such a semantic relation constitutes. Thus, the labels of Yabe that each “relate” to one another teach the claimed semantic relation (which is a positional relation that dictates the edge direction) in the broadest reasonable interpretation . 07-22-aia AIA 15. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2014052863A (Published on 20 March 2014) (Machine Translation Provided)) in view of Chitrapura et al. (Article entitled “Node Ranking in Labeled Directed Graphs”, dated 13 November 2004) as applied to claim s 1 and 3-4 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Article entitled “Detecting Similar Programs via the Weisdeiler-Leman Graph Kernel”, dated 10 May 2016) . 16. Regarding claim 2, Yabe and Chitrapura do not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: A) the operations further comprising: vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure; and B) comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval. Li , however, teaches “the operations further comprising: vectorizing the first graph structure and the second graph structure” as “In each iteration of the Weisfeiler-Lehman algorithm, a histogram is produced which encodes certain structural information of the graph, as shown in Fig 1… Hence, we apply standard normalization using the lengths of the two vectors and use the angle between the vectors as our similarity measure” (Page 5, Section 3) and “comparing the vectorized first graph structure and the vectorized second graph structure to perform document retrieval” as “In each iteration of the Weisfeiler-Lehman algorithm, a histogram is produced which encodes certain structural information of the graph, as shown in Fig 1… Hence, we apply standard normalization using the lengths of the two vectors and use the angle between the vectors as our similarity measure” (Page 5, Section 3). The examiner further notes that the secondary reference of Li teaches the concept of using the Weisfeiler-Lehman algorithm to encode (i.e. vectorize) graphs in order to calculate a similarity (i.e. perform a comparison of vectors) between graphs. The combination would result in expanding Yabe to use such an algorithm in order to calculate the similarity between its graphs via the use pf vectorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Li’s would have allowed Yabe’s and Chitrapura’s to provide a method for comparing entities in a generic manner, as noted by Li (Page 1, Section 1) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. PGPUB 2014/0278362 issued to Gerken et al. , on 18 September 2004. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-5 (e.g., methods to generate directed graphs). U.S. PGPUB 2017/0161255 issued to Starostin et al. , on 08 June 2017. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-5 (e.g., methods to generate labels in a graph). U.S. PGPUB 2016/0275058 issued to Starostin et al. , on 22 September 2016. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-5 (e.g., methods to generate labels in a graph). U.S. Patent 10,387,575 issued to Shen et al. , on 20 August 2019. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-5 (e.g., methods to generate labels in a graph). Contact Information 18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax 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). Mahesh Dwivedi Primary Examiner Art Unit 2168 April 22, 2026 /MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 9 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 10 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 11 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 12 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 13 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 14 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 15 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 16 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 17 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 18 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 19 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 20 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 21 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 22 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 23 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 19/170,106 Page 24 Art Unit: 2168
Prosecution Insights