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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claims/remarks filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10, 15 are amended with support from the disclosure. Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Priority
The effective filing date of the present disclosure is 08/04/2022.
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.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter
The independent claims 1, 10, and 15 are treated as the representative claims for the 2-step analysis. The dependent claims will be reanalyzed after the initial 2-step analysis on the independent claims. The representative claims are directed to:
Claims 1-9: A computer-implemented method
Claims 10-14: A system comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and one or more computer processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising
Claims 15-20: A non-transitory tangible machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
Claims 1-9 recite a method which falls under the category “process.” Claims 10-14 recites a system comprising a memory and computer processors, which falls under “machine.” Claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory tangible machine-readable storage medium which falls under machine or manufacture. Therefore, all of the claims fall within potentially eligible subject matter categories and are to be analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The representative claims recite the following, wherein the abstract idea has been bolded and the additional elements are italicized:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method
Claim 10: A system comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and one or more computer processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising
Claims 15: A non-transitory tangible machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
Claims 1, 10, 15: accessing, using an offline service, multiple databases to collect member information for at least one member of an online service, the member information comprising a list of first-degree connections of the at least one member and information about each first-degree connection;
storing in a data store, for the at least one member, using the offline service, the list of first-degree connections of the at least one member and the information about each first-degree connection using a single data schema of the data store to reduce a number of calls between the multiple databases when using the online service, wherein the data store is a key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources to reduce latency when accessing data stored in the single data schema
detecting, using the online service, a resource associated with a first member in the online service;
accessing, using the online service, the single data schema of the data store to obtain network connections of the first member within real time or near real time latency constraints, the network connections comprising first-degree connections and second-degree connections of the first member, the accessing comprising:
obtaining a list of first-degree connections of the first member;
obtaining lists of first-degree connections of the list of first-degree connections from the data store; and
generating a list of second degree-connections of the first member based on the lists of first-degree connections of the list of first-degree connections; for each network connection of the first member, determining if the resource is relevant for the network connection based on the member information retrieved from the data store, wherein the connection information comprises a score that indicates a probability that the network connection is seeking the resource, the score generated by a machine learning model; and
generating, using the online service, a notification about the resource for one or more of the network connections based on a relevance of the resource to the network connection.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 10, and 15 recite an abstract idea under the category “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically the subcategory “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). As stated in the specification [0017], “Example methods, systems, and computer programs are directed to creating notifications for job posts shared or posted by connections of a member.” The data processing steps recited in the bolded claims merely recite how personal relationships between individuals are stored, and how notifications are delivered to individuals based on those relationships. More specifically, the steps first recite accessing multiple databases to collect information about a member and their first-degree connections’ information, which is merely reciting data collection towards performing the abstract idea. Then the steps recite “storing...the list of first-degree connections of the at least one member and the information about each first-degree connection using a single data schema...”, however, this merely indicates how data is stored and that it is stored in a single data schema. The step “to reduce the number of calls between multiple databases” merely indicates the intended result of the preceding claim limitations and thus does not add a further limitation to the recited step. Therefore, the step of “accessing the single data schema to obtain network connections of the first member within real time or near real time latency constraints” is recited broadly and merely describes the intended result of obtaining the connections within real time or near real time latency constraints.
Applicant has not shown how storing the data in a singular data schema necessarily provides real time or near real time latency constraints, therefore it is an intended result, and does not add a further limitation to the recited step. The instant specification, in paragraphs [0061-0065] does provide details on the single data schema, however, the way in which a single data schema contributes to solving the latency issue depends on “Venice” which has not been claimed in the scope of the plain language of the claims. Therefore, considering that the steps of “reducing the number of calls between multiple databases” and “within real time or near real time latency constraints” are intended results that do not add further limitations, the remaining steps are merely data collection, processing, and output steps towards performing the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Furthermore, the amended steps of “wherein the data store is a key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources to reduce latency when accessing data stored in the single data schema” also recites the intended outcome of reducing latency when accessing data stored in the single data schema, but the claims still fail to recite the technology which is responsible for providing a supposed technical improvement. The intended outcome of reducing latency is therefore still part of the abstract idea, and the platform being a “key-value storage platform that supports stream data source” still provides more of the same abstract idea because it merely recites generic data architectures in which to perform the abstract idea. The claims are recited broadly such that they are no more than reciting the concept of using a key to retrieve a value which is a fundamental concept. Similarly, the concept of “stream data sources” is a broad term that merely recites the flow of data in a continuous manner, therefore, the fact that the platform is key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources is still reciting generic data processing steps towards performing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
- computer implemented method in claim 1
- A memory in claim 10
- computer processors in claim 10
- A non-transitory tangible machine-readable storage medium in claim 15
- a machine in claim 15
- offline service in claims 1, 10, 15
- online service in claims 1, 10, 15
- data store in claims 1, 10, 15
- machine learning model in claims 1, 10, 15
The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computing component as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “storing connections, and determining a likelihood that an individual would use a connection for a resource” is being implemented on computers, memory, data stores, processors, machines, or non-transitory computer-readable medium. It is evident that the specification recites these computing devices to be generic computing devices with no particular improvement to the computing environment themselves, at least in paragraphs [0131-0135] which provide examples of generic computing components performing the functions.
The additional elements “offline service,” “online service,” and “machine learning model” are general links to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). In this using offline and online services to perform the abstract idea is a general link to distributed computing. Storing certain forms of data offline and other forms of data online is not a meaningful way to limit the abstract idea in a manner that would integrate it into a practical application. Similarly, using machine learning, when stated as plainly and generally as it is stated in the claims, to perform a calculation of probability is not a meaningful limitation of the additional element to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the use of machine learning to calculate the relevancy of a network resource is merely used after the network connections are obtained from the online service, and does not interact with the offline and online service in an improved manner to the technological environment or field of use. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a), for more information. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Continuing the analysis, the additional elements of claim 1, 10, and 15 are reanalyzed under step 2b:
- computer implemented method in claim 1
- A memory in claim 10
- computer processors in claim 10
- A non-transitory tangible machine-readable storage medium in claim 15
- a machine in claim 15
- offline service in claims 1, 10, 15
- online service in claims 1, 10, 15
- data store in claims 1, 10, 15
- machine learning model in claims 1, 10, 15
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers, memory, data stores, processors, machines, or non-transitory computer-readable medium to “store connections, and determine a likelihood that an individual would use a connection for a resource” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the abstract idea is generally linked to the technological environments of “offline” and “online” services, and to the field of machine learning as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims merely link social graph traversal to distributed computing, however, this does not constitute an improvement to the technological environment aspect. The purported decrease in latency was not accomplished through improved computing, it was accomplished through the business decision of storing information in singular data schemas so as to reduce the amount of traversals being made. An improvement made to the abstract idea is not the same as an improvement to the technological environment, therefore in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2, 11, and 16 recite:
-The method as recited in claim 1/system of claim 10/medium of claim 15, wherein obtaining the lists of first-degree connections of the first-degree connections includes: making a plurality of batch calls to the data store, each batch call obtaining the second-degree connections obtained via a group from the list of first-degree connections.
Analyzed individually, or in combination with the claims they depend upon, the bolded claims are more of the same abstract of “managing personal behavior or relationships” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims are still mere data processing steps performing the function of outputting a list of individuals that are connected to a group of first-degree connections, which by definition is a method of managing personal relationships between people, therefore it is still more of the same abstract idea. The additional elements from the independent claims are still mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic components or a general link to a technological field. The new additional element, batch call, is a general link to a technological environment or field of use to API applications since it is a function within API. Whether considered individually, or in an ordered combination, batch calls are recited so generally that they do not meaningfully limit its use on the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Dependent claims 3, 12, and 17 recite:
-The method as recited in claim 1/system of claim 10/medium of claim 15, wherein accessing at least one database to collect member information further comprises: obtaining the first-degree connections from a first database storing social graph information; for each first-degree connection, obtaining the information about the first-degree connection from a second database storing information about members of the online service; and generating the list of first-degree connections.
Analyzed individually, or in combination with the claims they depend upon, the claims recite further steps that are still managing personal behavior or relationships as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Accessing databases to collect information about people’s relationships and then outputting a list of someone’s connections is merely managing personal relationships, therefore the claims recite more of the same abstract idea. There are no new additional elements to consider, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Dependent claims 4-7, 9, 13, 14, and 18-20 further limit existing limitations within the abstract idea of the representative claims, for example claims 4, 13, 18 requires the information about each first-degree connection to comprise a job-seeker score and one or more title identifiers. Claim 5, 14, 19 defines what the job seeker score is and that it is calculated through machine learning applied on historical data. Claims 6, 20 reasserts that the step of “determining if a resource is relevant” is based on the newly added job-seeker score and title identifiers. Claim 7 merely categorizes the job-seeker as a job-affinity score. Claim 9 introduces the types of notifications that can be included such as badge, push, or email. Since all of these steps merely further limit the scope of the abstract idea without adding any additional steps or limitations that would change the analysis, these claims analyzed individually or in combination recite more of the same abstract idea recited in the representative claims. The additional element of “machine learning” is still a general link to the technological environment of machine learning, and no other additional elements have been added, therefore the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Dependent claim 8 recites the following additional step:
- The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: providing a user interface (UI) to present resources for a given member, each resource providing an indication if the resource is sponsored by a network connection of the given member.
When analyzed individually, it is clear that this additional step merely provides a list of resources(such as jobs, or opportunities) to a user with an indication if the resource is sponsored by a connection. This is still a “certain method of organizing human activity” as it displays job opportunities that a user may have a connection with, which is still managing personal behavior or relationships. In combination with the claim it depends on, it is still more of the same abstract idea. The additional element “user interface (UI)” is a general link to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h), or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing component as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). A user interface is generally linked to perform the functioning of outputting data, but does not do so in an improved manner. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As indicated in the final rejection dated 03/31/2025, all of the limitations of claims 1-20 have not been taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Even after an updated search and further consideration of the amended claims, which only further limit the scope of the claims, the claims are still determined to be allowable over prior art.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/30/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding arguments over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, beginning on page 10 of the remarks filed on 09/30/2025, the applicant sets forth the statutory guidance by which the 101 analysis is evaluated in pages 10-12, by which the examiner believes the office action is in compliance with. On page 13, the applicant asserts that the claim does not describe a “certain method of organizing human activity,” and the applicant argues that “collecting and storing data does not describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between.” However, the “collecting and storing data” does not inherently disqualify claims from reciting an abstract idea. This is evident in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), “
An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity." 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640. \
Therefore, even claims that recite storing and collecting of data can recite an abstract idea if the steps are recited with such generality that they are no more than “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments that “the representative feature specifically defines the data store as a key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources to reduce latency when accessing data stored in the single data schema. It is clear that a hardware device such as a specific data store storing a software data structure that uses a single data schema cannot possibly describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” However, this argument is not persuasive because as stated in the rejection, the concept of the platform being described as a key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources is still a broad recitation of fundamental concepts, therefore they are merely generic data processing steps that are merely instructions to carry out the abstract idea. Simply reciting a hardware device running a software data structure does not automatically disqualify the claims from reciting an abstract idea. Especially when the hardware is merely a tool to carry out the abstract idea, as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The MPEP 2106.04 allows the examiner to perform a 2-step eligibility process, which consists of identifying recited abstract ideas in step 2a Prong 1. As seen in the office action above, since the invention performs data processing to manage information about relationships/connections between individuals and using the relevancy of the connections to transmit a notification to the user, it is a recitation of “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Therefore, the examiner stands by decision of “Yes” at step 2a Prong 1 as indicated in the rejection above.
In page 15 of the remarks, the applicant alleges that the office action picks a subset of additional elements, does not sufficiently explain why the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not evaluate the claims as a whole. This argument is considered moot. In view of the updated rejection in the present office action necessitated by amendment, the rejection above addresses all of the additional elements and the abstract idea, sufficiently explains why they do not integrate the practical application, and evaluates the additional elements as an ordered combination, considering whether their interaction with each other provides an improvement. The examiner has found that, within the scope of the current claim language, the elements are either part of the abstract idea, are intended result claims that do not provide a functional limitation, or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
In the 3rd paragraph of page 15 the applicant alleges that the claimed features improve the functioning of a computer, reciting a specially-configured computer system using an offline service to extract data and store them in a single database using a new data structure in order to retrieve the graph information within defined latency constraints. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., new data structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The use of a single data schema, along with its interactions with offline and online services, even when the platform is specifically a key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources does not necessarily map to the outcome of reducing latency. The applicant argues that paragraph [0024] and Fig. 5 point to overcoming a technical problem. However, when reading the claims in view of these paragraphs, the alleged improvement is an improvement to the abstract idea inherent to generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of offline/online services and distributed computing as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). The examiner reiterates that improvements to the abstract idea do not provide integration, the improvement must be to the technology, technological environment or field of use in the additional elements. Furthermore, storing all of the data in a single data schema, does not necessarily reduce latency alone. One might argue that the Venice platform enables the system to use batch calls in a derived data key value storage platform to process the data faster, which would provide the improvement to the latency. However, merely indicating the processing of less data leading to improved processing speeds is not a technical improvement. Therefore, the scope of the plain claim language does not sufficiently map to the alleged technical improvement, therefore no improvement has been found.
In page 16 that applicant has argued that the representative claim features have not been proven to be conventional citing Berkheimer Memo 3-4. However, this argument is unpersuasive. The rejection does not rely on a finding that the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activity that are well-understood or conventional, therefore, there is no burden on the examiner to provide a factual determination. The rejection on relies on MPEP 2106.05(a), (f), and (h), and has determined ineligibility in view of the findings based on those sections.
In page 16 the applicant cites Example 39 based on McRO, and the Bahr Memo, stating that the improvements can be claimed as a set of rules that improve computer related technology by allowing the performance of a function not previously performable by a computer, and an indication that a claim is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology may include – (1) a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology. The applicant goes on to argue that the representative claim is tied to a practical application of accelerating searches for graph information similar to example 39. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does not find the current language of the claims to sufficiently recite the inventive steps that actually provide the alleged improvements to latency. Contrary to page 17 of the remarks, which allege that single data schemas allow the online service to access both first-degree and second degree connections efficiently within real time constraints, the examiner posits that using offline and online data storages along with single data schemas, even in view of paragraphs 0022-0025, does not necessarily provide an improved way of reducing latency constraints. The single data schemas accessed by an online system, could still contain a large amount of data that takes an equivalent amount of time to process compared to conventional systems. Even when limiting the data store to a key-value storage platform that supports data stream sources, even when considering the claims as a whole, there is no improvement to technology or technical field recited in the claims.
Also in page 17, the applicant alleges that the use of machine learning to the determine to generate a relevance score for each network connection, determining whether to send notifications based on the score, and generating the notifications enhances the efficiency of resource sharing, and thereby “enables a computer...to do things it could not do before.” However, since the use of machine learning is performed after the fact(after detecting a resource associated with a member), resulting in a decision to provide a notification or not, then the alleged improvement is an improvement to the abstract idea inherent to implementing generic machine learning techniques. Determining whether a user should be notified of a relevant connection, using generic machine learning, is merely a facilitation of personal behavior or interactions or relationships between individuals. Therefore, the argument that the claims “enable a computer... to do things it could not do before” is not persuasive.
The arguments in the preceding paragraphs above also apply to applicant’s remarks found in page 17 and 18 which argue more of the same arguments, alleging that the claims provide a technical improvement outlined in [0022-0023] of the instant specification. However, this remains to be unpersuasive. In addition to the arguments in the preceding paragraphs, the cited sections also provide the intended result of the system but not functional improvements that lead to the result. Furthermore, in page 18 the applicant cites [0025] as the technical solution to the problem, followed by arguments alleging that the paragraph describes a specially-configured computer system arranged to solve the technical problem. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are missing elements that the specification deems to be part of the improvement, particularly because the claims do not recite the “resultant searching method” which includes finding the connections that meet query criteria without having access to other databases. The paragraph [0025] states, “This new data structure that is created and the resultant searching methods provides a new specific technical implementation that reduces the computing resources to perform searches and the time taken to perform the searches.” However, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a),
“The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” The citation in paragraph [0025] is a “bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Even when considering the entirety of the disclosure, it is not immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the scope of the claim language reflects all of the features that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP 2106.05(a) states,
“That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.”
Therefore, since the full scope of the claim under the BRI does not reflect the improvement in technology(despite reciting the improvement described in the specification “to reduce latency when accessing data stored in the single data schema” then the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged improvement are not persuasive.
Furthermore, contrary to arguments on page 19 of the remarks, the applicant has not provided a clear nexus to example 39 as to how the invention has allowed computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer.
In page 19, the applicant alleges specific technological improvements, while citing to
case law such as Alice Corp., DDR Holdings, Enfish, and McRo. More specifically, the applicant argues that the claims “address the technical problem of latency in large-scale graph traversal.” However, reiterating the examiner’s arguments above, the claims must recite the features that have produced the alleged improvement in order to consider those features as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more. Furthermore, the outcome of Alice is the use of the 2 step eligibility analysis, which has been properly used in the rejection to determine the ineligibility of the claims, therefore this argument is not persuasive. Next, the applicant cites to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014), alleging that the instant application is similar in that provides a concrete solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. However, this is not persuasive, because providing a concrete solution to a problem rooted in computer technology alone is not the standard set forth in order to consider eligibility. In DDR..., according to MPEP 2106.05(f), “the court found that the additional elements did amount to more than merely instructing that the abstract idea should be applied on the Internet.” However, in the rejection above, the examiner has not found that the additional elements amount to more than “mere instructions to apply an exception” on generic computing components. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not considered persuasive. Next, the applicant cites to Enfish, LLC vs. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), stating that the instant application aligns with Enfish through the real-time or near real-time processing constraints. However, this is not the standard set forth in Enfish. According to MPEP 2106.05(b) and (d), Enfish... is directed to clear improvements to computer-related technology, not directed to an abstract idea, unlike the present application. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. The applicant cites to McRo, Inc, v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F. 3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) alleging that the present application distinguishes from routine data processing due to the generation of relevance scores using a machine learning model. However, as stated in previous arguments by the examiner, the machine learning model is used generically, after the graph traversal has been performed, to generate relevance scores. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or in combination, the additional elements amount to more than applying the additional elements to a generic computing device and generally linking the abstract idea to technological environment. This is unlike McRo..., which was directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Furthermore, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), “The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea.” This is unlike the present claim language, which claims the intended result of reducing latency, combined with merely applying the abstract idea to a computer, or general links to particular technological environments or fields of use without an improvement. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments in page 20 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant cites “Kim Memo 4” and states that the representative claim improves technology or a technical field in ML for improved quality and accuracy of predictions for networking services provided a connections networking system. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite “the score generated by a machine learning model” without specifically reciting meaningful limitations that limit the abstract idea. This is merely an “apply it” or “general link” level implementation because it is recited so broadly that is no more than generating a score “using machine learning.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the claims improve technology in the ML field is not persuasive. Furthermore, the applicant’s assertions that there is an improvement to the quality and accuracy of predictions for networking services provided by a connections networking system, however, improving the quality and accuracy is merely a result of broadly implementing the machine learning along with the abstract idea on a generic computer. There is no technological improvement within the scope of the claim. In order to claim that the claims recite a technological solution to the technical problem of latency in large-scale graph traversals, the claims must meaningfully limit the scope such that the scope of the claims reflects the purported improvement.
Furthermore in page 21, the applicant cites to paragraphs [0061] and [0062] of the scope arguing that the representative claim recites a specific type of data store that supports stream data sources. However, even with the amendments including a “key-value storage platform that supports stream data sources,” the scope of the claims still do not recite the technological solution. The examiner finds that as stated in [0062] of the specification,
“Venice supports the data source from both ETLs and streaming, which reduces the complexity of applications. Also, Venice reduces the latency issue by supporting stream data sources and is highly scalable and reliable. Some of the Venice components include a controller, storage nodes, and a router. The controller controls the assignment of the storage nodes and provides version control. The storage nodes are the places where the data is stored, and the router provides an API to provide access to external systems.”
Therefore, the examiner believes that the Venice platform, is responsible for reducing the complexity of applications and reducing the latency issue. However, since the scope of the claims does not necessarily limit itself to this platform, the claim scope does not include the alleged technological improvement. Since Venice is a proprietary platform, the specification does not recite sufficient detail on the infrastructure of the Venice platform, and the claims do not recite the Venice infrastructure, the claim scope does not reflect the technological improvement that the Venice platform is responsible for. The examiner notes that even if the “Venice platform” were recited by name in the specifications, because the specification lacks the details of the technological infrastructure of Venice, the claim scope would still not reflect the improvement purported in the specification. Therefore, the applicants arguments in page 21 regarding the improvement are not persuasive, and the examiner does not agree that the claims pass Step 2A Prong two.
In pages 22 and 23 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant recites the revised guidance at step 2B, specifically citing BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F. 3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the office action does not adequately support a finding that the recited steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on a finding that the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activity that are well-understood or conventional, therefore, there is no burden on the examiner to provide a factual determination. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the real-time or near real-time processing...mirrors the technological advancement in Bascom..., where an non-conventional arrangement of components provided a patent-eligible solution. However, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive for two reasons. First, the current scope of the claims does not provide the features which provide the purported improvement, it merely recites the abstract idea merely being applied to a computer, and generally linked to a particular technological environment, with the intended result of a lower latency. Secondly, according to MPEP 2106.06(b), the finding in Bascom have been found to present a close call in Step 2A, thus relying on the analysis in step 2b, which found that the elements in combination amounted to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art. This is unlike the present invention, for the reasons stated above, both that it is an example of merely applying, and a general link (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In addition, the rejection does not rely on a finding that the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activity that are well-understood or conventional. Therefore, none of the arguments have been found persuasive and the 101 rejection is upheld.
Furthermore, no arguments specifically addressing dependent claims have been made by the applicant, therefore, in view of the 101 rejection above, the dependent claims are still found to be rejected for being patent ineligible due to being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Dandy et al. (US 20180075078) discloses systems, apparatus, methods and computer programs for processing offline updates to records of a database system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626