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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 and 03/03/2026 are 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
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 therefore, 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 10 are directed to a " medium, method, and a device…", and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 9 - 10, include the following limitations that directed to an abstract idea:
“generating a causal graph coupling a plurality of nodes by directed edges based on a plurality of data serving as a basis in generating the causal graph, the causal graph being generated so as to optimize a value of an objective function that includes a first term indicating that the more destination connections and connection sources shared between different nodes in the causal graph, a higher is an evaluation thereof”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The generating step describes maximizing a mathematical value ("optimize a value of an objective function") using graph-theory parameters (destination connections, source connections, directed edges). Under USPTO guidelines, mathematical relationships, algorithms, and formulas are categorized as abstract ideas. Further, "Generating a causal graph... based on a plurality of data" describes the collection, manipulation, and visual organization of data. Because this relationship logic could technically be computed using pen and paper or processed purely in the human mind, it’s categorized as a mental process. See court case in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
“updating the generated causal graph so as to aggregate, among the plurality of nodes, two or more nodes sharing a common connection destination and a common connection source, the two or more nodes being aggregated into a single node” as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The Acts of “updating …aggregate... two or more nodes... into a single node” is considered as analyzing, organizing, and mathematical reduction of data, which is a mental process that a human could perform using paper and pen. See court case FairWarning IP v. Iatric Systems, and also in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that gathering, analyzing, and displaying information is inherently abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements such as:
The claim recites the term "a computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information processing program causing a computer to execute a process", “a memory, a processor”, are considered as a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Using physical hardware terminology does not automatically save a claim. These are just generic, off-the-shelf computer hardware acting as a tool to execute the abstract concept.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, using a " a computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information processing program causing a computer to execute a process", “a memory, a processor” are considered conventional or routine computer functions. Because the additional elements amount to nothing more than routine data-gathering and standard computer implementation, they fail to provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 2 - 3, includes “wherein the objective function further includes a second term evaluating a plausibility of the causal graph with respect to the plurality of data”, is description of a metal process. Calculating, sorting, and adjusting graph structures based on the destination or source of network links can theoretically be done via pencil and paper, placing it under the "mental processes" or "certain methods of organizing human activity" exceptions.
The dependent claim 4, includes “wherein the objective function indicates a smaller is the value of the objective function, the higher is the evaluation, and the first term increases in value so as to worsen the evaluation each time a node of the causal graph becomes a connection destination or a connection source for only one node of any pair among a plurality of pairs of nodes in the causal graph”, are “mental process” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Graph theory operations (counting nodes, identifying single-connected source/destination nodes) are logical relationships that can theoretically be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. The claim details a mathematical optimization strategy. It defines an objective function, a minimization criterion ("smaller is the value... higher is the evaluation"), and algebraic penalization rules ("increases in value so as to worsen the evaluation"). Courser rulings (like Electric Power Group and SAP America) consistently hold that performing mathematical calculations, manipulating data, or executing algorithms are abstract ideas.
The dependent claim 5, includes “wherein the second term indicates that a smaller is an absolute value of a difference of a data matrix representing the plurality of data, and a product of the data matrix and an adjacency matrix of the causal graph, the higher is the evaluation” is considered as a method of organizing human activity or a logical idea, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The dependent claim 6, includes “wherein the generating includes generating the causal graph by repeatedly performing a process of updating the causal graph in a direction that optimizes the value of the objective function” is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application Generating a "causal graph" based on relationship data is fundamentally a method of collecting, analyzing, and organizing data, that could conceptually be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, making it an abstract concept. Optimization algorithms that repeatedly update a statistical or mathematical model (the "causal graph") to minimize or maximize a mathematical equation ("objective function") are treated strictly as mathematical formulas and algorithms.
The dependent claim 7, includes “wherein the generating includes generating the causal graph from any one of a plurality of candidates that indicates a highest evaluation based on values of the objective function for the plurality of candidates of the causal graph” is considered as mental process, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Generating a graph based on the best-scoring candidate is viewed as a high-level data sorting or logical decision-making process that could technically be done with a pen and paper. Calculating the values of an "objective function" and comparing them to find a "highest evaluation" is fundamentally mathematical optimization.
The dependent claim 8, includes “wherein the updated causal graph is output”, is insignificant extra solution activity, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The action of "output" the graph is treated as mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (U.S. 11,321,885 B1) in view of Vaishnay (U.S. 2018/0129686 A1).
♦As per claims 1, 9 - 10
Du discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information processing program causing a computer to execute a process (Fig. 10, 12), the process comprising:
“generating a causal graph coupling a plurality of nodes by directed edges based on a plurality of data serving as a basis in generating the causal graph, the causal graph being generated so as to optimize a value of an objective function that includes a first term indicating that the more destination connections and connection sources shared between different nodes in the causal graph, a higher is an evaluation thereof” See Fig. 2 – 4, col. 14 lines 5 - 18 of Du wherein a causal graph is generated based on relationship and scores between nodes, (“the causality-visualization system 102 performs an act 202 to determine causal relationships between dimensions of the multidimensional dataset and uncertainty metrics for the causal relationships. In particular, the causality-visualization system 102 generates a causal graph that indicates causal relationships between the various dimensions”).
“and updating the generated causal graph so as to aggregate, among the plurality of nodes, two or more nodes sharing a common connection destination and a common connection source, the two or more nodes being aggregated into a single node” See Fig. 5B (node aggregation), col. 17 lines 46 – 64 of Du wherein “the causality-visualization system 102 also aggregates nodes in causal chains”.
Du teaches “To aggregate nodes corresponding to dimensions in chains of one-to-one causal relationships, the causality-visualization system 102 groups (or causes the client device 108 to group) the nodes into a node group within a single layer” (col. 17 lines 46 – 64, col. 23 lines 50 - 60). In this case a single layer is also considered as a node. In case the Applicant disagrees, the Examiner provides another example.
Vaishnay, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method, system for merging and unmerging objects using graphical representation. In particular Vaishnay teaches:
A causal graph (direct graph): See Fig. 1B, Para. 0047 – 0048 of Vaishnay.
“nodes in a directed graph can be easily merged together by combining the edges that form a dimension to point to a fused node” See Fig. 3A-B, 4A-B, 5A-B, Para. 0052, 0056 - 0062 of Vaishnay, wherein nodes are merged into a fuse node.
Update the generated causal graph: See Para. 0052, 0060 of Vaishnay wherein “When the schema for custom objects and custom relationships are updated, the cache may be refreshed to reflect the update”, “when a node in a directed graph is updated, information about the update may be stored in the audit file 465”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Vaishnay into the invention of Du since both inventions were available and the combination would provide the user with more compact, organized causal graph for easy navigation.
♦As per claim 2,
“wherein the objective function (merge rule) further includes a second term evaluating a plausibility of the causal graph with respect to the plurality of data” See Para. 0051 of Vaishnay wherein “a merge rule may include information about an object whose records are to be merged and a dimension that the merge operation is based on”.
♦As per claim 3,
“wherein the first term indicates that in the causal graph, of the plurality of nodes, a higher number of combinations of nodes sharing a common connection destination and a higher number of combinations of nodes having a common connection source, the higher is the evaluation thereof” See Para. 0056, 0059 - 0062 of Vaishnay wherein different rules applied. Also see col. 14 lines 33 – 50 of Du wherein Parent-child relationships are considered in aggregation process.
♦As per claim 4,
“wherein the objective function indicates a smaller is the value of the objective function, the higher is the evaluation, and the first term increases in value so as to worsen the evaluation each time a node of the causal graph becomes a connection destination or a connection source for only one node of any pair among a plurality of pairs of nodes in the causal graph” See Para. 0056, 0059 - 0062 of Vaishnay wherein different rules applied. Also see col. 14 lines 33 – 50 of Du wherein Parent-child relationships are considered in aggregation process.
♦As per claim 5,
“wherein the second term indicates that a smaller is an absolute value of a difference of a data matrix representing the plurality of data, and a product of the data matrix and an adjacency matrix of the causal graph, the higher is the evaluation” See Para. 0056, 0059 - 0062 of Vaishnay wherein different rules applied. Also see col. 14 lines 33 – 50 of Du wherein Parent-child relationships are considered in aggregation process.
♦As per claim 6,
“wherein the generating includes generating the causal graph by repeatedly performing a process of updating the causal graph in a direction that optimizes the value of the objective function” See col. 21 lines 20 – 29 of Du wherein “the causality-visualization system 102 further repeats the process of determining and comparing causal-relationship scores for multiple iterations. .. system 102 repeats the process for as many iterations as required until no more added relationships improve an overall (e.g., an average) causal-relationship score for the causal relationships within the causal graph”.
♦As per claim 7,
“wherein the generating includes generating the causal graph from any one of a plurality of candidates that indicates a highest evaluation based on values of the objective function for the plurality of candidates of the causal graph” See Fig. 3A of Vaishnay wherein parent-child relationships are determined. Also Fig. 2 – 4 and associated texts of Du wherein relationships and scores are used.
♦As per claim 8,
“wherein the updated causal graph is output” See Fig. 4 – 5 of Du wherein the causal graph is displayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights