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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/10/2025.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8:
“data obtaining unit”
“knowledge extracting unit”
“indicator extending unit”
“weight calculating unit”
“system constructing unit”
Specification see Figures 4-5, ¶0111 and ¶0135
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
obtaining multi-source data associated with marine science and an initial indicator set;
performing knowledge extraction on the multi-source data, and constructing a knowledge graph for typical marine scenarios and a spatiotemporal raster database based on a result of the knowledge extraction;
extending the initial indicator set based on the knowledge graph to obtain a basic indicator set, and obtaining a relationship between basic indicators and a degree of uncertainty of the relationship between the basic indicators;
establishing a directed weighted network with indicators as nodes based on the relationship between the basic indicators and the degree of uncertainty of the relationship between the basic indicators, and calculating a weight for each basic indicator using a random walk model; and
obtaining an observation value of each basic indicator based on the spatiotemporal raster database, determining an assessment value of a comprehensive indicator using the observation value of each basic indicator and the weight for each basic indicator to form an assessment indicator system for typical marine scenarios.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, multi-source data and an initial indicator set, performing knowledge extraction, constructing the knowledge graph, establishing a directed weighted network, determining a degree of uncertainty, obtaining an observation value and determining an assessment value involve collecting and analyzing data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
The claims also encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations.
Independent Claim 8 substantially recites the subject matter of claim 1 and encompass the same abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to obtaining a relationship between the basic indicators and the degree of uncertainty (data gathering); Claim 3 is directed establishing the directed weighted network with indicators nodes based on the relationship between the basic indicators and degree of uncertainty (analyzing using mathematical operations); Claim 4 is directed performing iterative calculation on the initial weight for the node until convergence using random walk model(analyzing using mathematical operations); Claim 5 is directed to determining an initial weight for each basic indicator based on quantities of literatures(analyzing using mathematical operations); Claim 6 is directed to performing knowledge extraction on the multi-source data and constructing a knowledge graph for typical marine scenarios (analyzing data); Claim 7 is directed to extending an initial indicator set based on the knowledge graph; and Claim 9 is directed to an electronic device; Claim 10 is directed a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a memory, a processor and a non-transitory computer -readable storage medium. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0053).
For instance, the step of obtaining multi-source data associated with marine science is considered data gathering activity. The steps of performing knowledge extraction on multi-source data, constructing knowledge graph and spatiotemporal raster database; extending the initial indicator set based on the knowledge graph to obtain a basic indicator set; obtaining a relationship between basic indicators; establishing a directed weighted network; calculating a weight for each basic indicator using a random walk model involve collecting and analyzing data (e.g. mathematical operations). The step of obtaining an observation value of each basic indicator and determining an assessment value of a comprehensive indicator is the final result of the analysis.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Li (CN118227664 A) discloses a knowledge map comprising: ocean subject word knowledge map, ocean engineering knowledge map, where the ocean subject word knowledge map is composed of the ocean subject word and the upper, lower, synonymous and related four relations among each subject word, the ocean engineering knowledge map is composed of the ocean scientific literature, scientific data set entity and the relation among each entity.
Cao et al. (CN117609517) discloses constructing a knowledge map of the ocean field based ocean related data sources for improving the searching efficiency of the marine field knowledge, wherein the marine engineering knowledge map is composed of marine scientific literature, scientific data set entity and relation among the entities.
Li et al. (CN117744784A) discloses constructing the knowledge map according to the field relation intensity level data, the field subject relation network and the content field subordinate relation network so as to obtain the content field knowledge map. The subject or entity creates a node, and initializes the attribute of the node, including name, description, and maps the domain relationship strength level data to the edge in the knowledge map for representing the relationship strength between the nodes and setting the side weight or other attributes according to the relation intensity.
Eidelman et al. (US 2023/0214754) discloses generating and analyzing policy, policymaker, and organizational entities and relationships through the construction of issue-based knowledge graph knowledge graph.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights