DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10 and 16 are objected to because “determining a plurality of node label” should be amended to --determining a plurality of node labels--. Appropriate correction is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
20210182659
Pars. 72-76, 89
Graph database of a taxonomy of categories
20200011784
Pars. 20, 36
Graph based taxonomy for asset monitoring across various domains
The following are prior art references made of record but not currently relied upon:
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes, with emphasis, “aggregating one or more attribute values to generate at least one aggregated attribute value.” By definition, an aggregate is a grouped storage of two or more elements/values. However, because this limitation encompasses aggregating only one value, it is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-20 are likewise rejected.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claim 1, 9 and 15, the generating, linking cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The aggregation (i.e. storing) limitation is recited at a high level of generality and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 3, 11, 17 the generating covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving is recited at a high level of generality and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 the generate, determine, linking over performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 12, 18 storing steps are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12455924 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are encompassed by the patented claims; instant claims 1-20 are broader in scope than patented claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 arerejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9686308 B1, hereinafter Srivastava.
As per claim 1, Srivastava discloses a method comprising:
generating a plurality of node data objects within a graph-based taxonomy (see at least col. 10, lines 35-45 and last par., col. 13, line 35, col. 17, lines 9-12 for nodes representing a domain and domain categories within a graph-based taxonomy generated in response to user inputted content);
generating an attribute data object representing an attribute (col. 7, lines 43-46; col. 8, lines 6-14; col. 10, line 33; col. 18, lines 1-3, col. 19, lines 1-4 and 30-34);
linking the attribute data object to one or more node data objects of the plurality of node data objects according to one or more relationships corresponding to a selected node data object (see rejection of previous limitation); and
aggregating one or more attribute values to generate at least one aggregated attribute value for the attribute according to the attribute data object linked to the one or more node data objects within the graph-based taxonomy (see rejection above and col. 7, line 42-46 and col. 18, lines 54-60).
As per claim 2, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the plurality of node data objects within the graph-based taxonomy comprises: determining a plurality of node label for the plurality of node data objects (see rejection of generating limitation of claim 1 and at least fig.’s 2-3 and col. 8, last sentence, col. 9, lines 2-3, 6-8, col. 10, lines 58-62); and generating at least one node comprising at least one node label of the plurality of node labels (see rejection of generating limitation of claim 1 and at least fig.’s 2-3 and col. 8, last sentence, col. 9, lines 2-3, 6-8).
As per claim 3, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the attribute data object comprises:
receiving a request to assign the attribute to the selected node data object (col. 8, lines 15-25, 31, 32, 63-67); and
generating the attribute data object, wherein the attribute data object is configured to determine, based on additional input, the aggregated attribute values (see rejection of claim 1 including at least col. 7, line 42 and col. 18, lines 54-60).
As per claim 4, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
generating the attribute data object comprises storing a plurality of aggregation operation types for the attribute within the attribute data object (col. 7, line 42; col. 8, lines 6-14; col. 9, first par.; col. 18, lines 54-60); and
linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises storing, in response to additional input, an indication of a selected aggregation operation type of the plurality of aggregation operation types in the one or more node data objects (see rejection of previous limitation including col. 7, lines 43-46; col. 19, lines 1-4 and 30-34).
As per claim 5, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises generating, within the selected node data object, a parent set comprising one or more node identifiers for one or more additional node data objects with a parent relationship to the selected node data object (see rejection of previous limitation including col. 7, lines 43-46; col. 19, lines 1-4 and 30-34 wherein updating or adding new nodes means that after the adding, one node is a parent and one is a child).
As per claim 6, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises generating, within the selected node data object, a child set comprising one or more node identifiers for one or more additional node data objects with a child relationship to the selected node data object (see rejection of previous limitation including col. 7, lines 43-46; col. 19, lines 1-4 and 30-34 wherein updating or adding new nodes means that after the adding, one node is a parent and one is a child).
As per claim 7, Srivastava discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises: determining that an additional node data object of the plurality of node data objects inherits the attributes of the selected node data object (see col. 15, lines 7-21 and fig. 4); and linking the attribute data object to the additional node data object by storing an attribute identifier of the attribute data object in the additional node data object (see col. 15, lines 7-21 and fig. 4).
As per claim 8, Srivastava discloses the method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the one or more attribute values to generate the aggregated attribute values comprises: determining that the one or more node data objects are linked to the attribute data object (col. 7, line 42-56; col. 18, lines 46-55); and generating the aggregated attribute values by aggregating the one or more attribute values extracted from attribute metadata in the one or more node data objects according to an aggregation operation indicated by the one or more node data objects (col. 7, line 42-56; col. 18, lines 46-55).
As per claims 9-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180357296 A1, hereinafter Michel.
As per claim 1, Michel discloses A method comprising:
generating a plurality of node data objects within a graph-based taxonomy (pars. 14, 18-29 wherein root, intermediate and leaf nodes are arranged as trees);
generating an attribute data object representing an attribute (pars. 30-35 wherein settlement point data objects contain selected characteristics and aggregation algorithms);
linking the attribute data object to one or more node data objects of the plurality of node data objects according to one or more relationships corresponding to a selected node data object (pars. 15, 33-37 wherein settlement point linked to selected nodes and their hierarchy paths); and
aggregating one or more attribute values to generate at least one aggregated attribute value for the attribute according to the attribute data object linked to the one or more node data objects within the graph-based taxonomy (pars. 32, 42-44, 51-52 wherein selected operations aggregate characteristic values from linked nodes).
As per claim 2, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the plurality of node data objects within the graph-based taxonomy comprises: determining a plurality of node label for the plurality of node data objects (pars. 14, 24-28); and generating at least one node comprising at least one node label of the plurality of node labels (pars. 14, 24-28 wherein nodes are displayed with standardized names and identifiers).
As per claim 3, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the attribute data object comprises: receiving a request to assign the attribute to the selected node data object (pars. 33-36, 42-44, 51-52); and generating the attribute data object, wherein the attribute data object is configured to determine, based on additional input, the aggregated attribute values (pars. 33-36, 42-44, 51-52 wherein users select nodes, characteristics, and algorithms and settlement points are created).
As per claim 4, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: generating the attribute data object comprises storing a plurality of aggregation operation types for the attribute within the attribute data object (pars. 30-36); and linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises storing, in response to additional input, an indication of a selected aggregation operation type of the plurality of aggregation operation types in the one or more node data objects (pars. 30-36 disclose selectable aggregation algorithms are associated with selected characteristics).
As per claim 5, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises generating, within the selected node data object, a parent set comprising one or more node identifiers for one or more additional node data objects with a parent relationship to the selected node data object (pars. 20-29, 36-37 wherein canonical node paths identify and maintain parent relationships).
As per claim 6, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises generating, within the selected node data object, a child set comprising one or more node identifiers for one or more additional node data objects with a child relationship to the selected node data object (pars. 20-26 wherein parent nodes maintain identified dependent child nodes).
As per claim 7, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein linking the attribute data object to the one or more node data objects comprises: determining that an additional node data object of the plurality of node data objects inherits the attributes of the selected node data object (pars. 15, 36-37); and linking the attribute data object to the additional node data object by storing an attribute identifier of the attribute data object in the additional node data object (pars. 15, 36-37 disclose that settlement point includes selected nodes and their related hierarchy paths).
As per claim 8, Michel discloses The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the one or more attribute values to generate the aggregated attribute values comprises: determining that the one or more node data objects are linked to the attribute data object (pars. 36, 39-44); and generating the aggregated attribute values by aggregating the one or more attribute values extracted from attribute metadata in the one or more node data objects according to an aggregation operation indicated by the one or more node data objects (pars. 36, 39-44 disclose linked node characteristic values are aggregated using the associated algorithm).
As per claims 9-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights