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 .
The amendments were received on 9/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending where claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 14 were amended to recite new limitations including “causing, by the computing hardware and responsive to at least one iteration of the plurality of iterations parsing the first data source, a rollback of at least one change set within the change set repository” (claim 1); “causing, by the computing hardware, a rollback to the previous version of the data” claim 11); and “causing a rollback to the previous version of the data” (claim 14). The Examiner notes that support for the limitations appear to be from paragraph [0047] of the originally filed specification. With regard to claim 1, the limitation appears to be recited after the conducting the plurality of iterations limitation which implies that all those steps including generating a change set, saving the change set; querying an unapplied change set and determining updates to migrate the unapplied change set to the graph happens and then the claim requires the rollback of changeset. However, as noted in paragraph [0047], the discussion focuses on handling “rollbacks of migrations to revert a graph to a previous version”. Additionally, the system can perform rollback as part of an extended functionality to the parsing step where the system can, as part of the parsing step, rollback the creation of a changeset (e.g. when a changeset has an issue and is deleted) and then attempt to re-create the change set. As such, it is unclear what claim 1 is attempting to do; is the causing the rollback limitation always occurring whenever an iteration occurs (and respectively all the updating steps).
For claim 1, depending on the intention of the applicant with respect the claim scope, the Examiner recommends:
Move the amended causing clause to after the generating a change set and add in clarifying details to indicate that the causing steps determines a changeset that has an issue, changeset is deleted/rolled back and repeat the parsing and generating steps to re-create the change set; or
Change the causing step to relate to rollbacks of migrations to revert a graph to a previous version. The causing step can be based on receiving an indication/command/instruction (e.g. causing, by the computing hardware and responsive to at least one received instruction after at least one iteration of the plurality of iterations providing a second query to migrate the unapplied change set, a rollback of the graph representation to a previous version of the graph representation). Please note suggested limitation is purely an example and further review of the limitations language is required to ensure it conforms with all 35 USC 112 requirements including antecedent basis, the suggested limitation is for discussion purposes only with the hope to convey the concept more concretely.
For clams 11 and 14, these claims recite similar limitations of a causing a rollback to the previous version of the data; however, as noted above with regard to claim 1, the causing step always occurs after the parsing and before the generating a changeset. In other words, the rollback appears to be the rollback of the first data source to a previous version which raises some questions as to the support for the claim limitation in the specification since the specification does not appear to teach nor discuss parsing the first data source to identify differences between the first and second data sources (second data source comprising a previous version of the data) then rolling back the first data source so that both first and second data sources are identical, then after the rollback, generating a change set based on the previously identified differences in order to save the change set and then apply it to modify the graph representation even though neither data source has those changes anymore (i.e. first data source was already rolled back). For these claims, the Examiner recommends either (i) move the causing step to after the providing step in a manner similar to the recommendation for option (b) above with regard to claim 1; or (ii) move the causing limitation after the generating a changeset and modify the limitation to reflect rollbacking changesets, similar to option (a) above with regard to claim 1.
With regard to claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20, these claims depend upon their respective independent claims and inherit the same deficiencies as noted above and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant amended the claims to incorporate new limitations that required further search and consideration of the prior art. A new reference was found that appears to be related to the amendments (see Chandramouli et al [US 2021/0011913 A1] which teaches at paragraphs at paragraph [0053] that issues can arise with the graph at the current version and the system can rollback that version of the graph to a previous version); however, even when combined, the combination of references would not appear to teach, or fairly suggest, the claim limitations as recited
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see the first paragraph on page 9 through the last paragraph on page 12) with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to include new limitations that differentiated the claims from the prior art of record. A further search was conducted, as noted above, however, no new references were found that would, when combined, teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 3/20/2026