DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a request for continued examination dated 17 August 2026 in response to the 18 May 2026 final rejection (the “Previous Action”).
With the request, Applicant traverses all rejections.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are the independent claims.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traverses the § 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 and submits that the features of claim 1 are supported by the originally filed specification.
First, Applicant points out that paragraph [0074] discloses storing values extracted from the configuration code in data fields of a code object node, that Figure 3 shows generating an edge between a code-object and an instance node and that paragraphs [0023] and [0036] discloses that a single code object can be associated with multiple workloads or machines. (Remarks, p. 1 par. 4 – p. 2 par. 2)
Examiner agrees that the specification describes storing extracted values in fields of a code object node but respectfully submits that doing so “wherein each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field” is still lacking.
Applicant adds that paragraph [0049] “expressly teaches that, rather than storing the same information in each workload node, the information may be stored in a single node to which the workload nodes are connected”, that paragraph [0077] reiterates this architecture for resource nodes and that “paragraph [0026] similarly states that configuration-code data is used to populate the security graph in a compact manner that reduces graph-database storage.” (Remarks, (Remarks, p. 3 pars. 1-2, p. 3 par. 2)
Examiner respectfully disagrees that these paragraphs support what is claimed and submits that unlike the data field values vales of the claims, the information in paragraphs [0049] and [0077] (i.e., “public network access” and a “cybersecurity issue”) is not extracted from any code object and is not stored in a data field of any node representing a code object. Nodes representing public network access and cybersecurity are not described as including any fields or storing any information in fields either.
Applicant argues that paragraph [0049] is not limited to public network access enrichment nodes because paragraph [0074] “separately and expressly identifies the code-object node as a node that stores extracted configuration-code values.” (Remarks, p. 3 last par. – p. 4 par. 1).
Examiner does not maintain that paragraph [0049] is strictly limited to public network access enrichment nodes, only that it does not support what is claimed, in combination with paragraph [0074] or otherwise. Nothing in paragraph [0074] suggests that public network access nodes are code-object nodes. Note that the difference between paragraph [0049] and what is claimed is not merely the difference between the type of node described. The public network access node of paragraph [0049] represents a characteristic not stored in the connected nodes itself and the connections between it and the connected nodes indicate that the other nodes possess that characteristic. The connections between a node representing a code object and the plurality of nodes claimed instead indicate that resources represented by the plurality of nodes were deployed based on the code object.
Applicant argues that a specification may support alternative embodiments in which a value is included in or excluded from another node, that alternative features can support a negative limitation and that a disclosure can support both inclusion and exclusion of the same feature. (Remarks, p. 4 par. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that what is claimed is disclosed in the specification as an alternative feature to anything described. In the examiner’s view, the specification describes storing data field values in both code object nodes and instances nodes, not either in the alternative.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, similarity with claim 1 or dependence from a similar claim are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim refers to:
…storing the extracted data field value in a data field of a node representing the first code object in the graph database…
…wherein each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field value.
There is insufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features.
Paragraphs [0049] and [0077] appear the most relevant but while those paragraphs do describe storing information on a single node rather than each of a plurality of workload nodes, they do not disclose this single node as representing “first code object” as claimed. Per those paragraphs, the single node represents “access to a public network” or a “cybersecurity issue”, not a “first code object” from which, per the claim, the workloads are “deployed.”
As to claims 3-10, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 11, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 12, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 14-21, the claims are dependent on claim 12 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 3-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
[a] method for generating an enrichment layer in a security graph stored in a graph database representing a cloud computing environment, comprising:
detecting in a configuration code a plurality of code objects, each of the plurality of code objects corresponding to an instance deployed in the cloud computing environment;
traversing the security graph via a query to the graph database to detect a plurality of nodes, each node representing an instance deployed from a first code object of the plurality of code objects;
extracting a data field value from the first code object;
storing the extracted data field value in a data field of a node representing the first code object in the graph database; and
connecting the representation of the node representing the first code object to each node of the plurality of nodes in the graph database, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field value
Though the claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because all of the above steps are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1).
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong 2).
References to storing the graph in a graph database and traversing a graph “via query to the graph database” only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). Traversing a graph via a query to the graph database is also insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to mere data-gathering. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
Note too that while the specification may refer to reducing storage requirements of a graph, the claims do not include the components or steps that reduce those storage requirements. (See paragraphs [0049] and [0077] of the specification). Avoiding duplicate information in a graph is also not a technical improvement because doing so in a graph created by the human mind with aid of pen and paper would still be advantageous in the sense the resulting paper graph would occupy less space on paper and be less complex. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1). The claim thus provides no technical improvement.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. At best, their collective function is merely to implement an abstract idea using a generic computer or generic computing components in combination with necessary extra-solution data gathering.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. (Step 2B). Note that reevaluation of the extra-solution activity per step 2B does not indicate that this element is anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, at least as evidenced by the fact that commercial products such as Neo4j and Cypher include traversal of graphs via queries. (See US 2014/0278590 at pars. [0081] and [0100]).
As to claims 3-10, and 21 the features of these claims do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because they do not add any additional elements. The additional elements of these claims are all part of a mental process and thus only describe the abstract idea.
As to claim 11, the claim recites a judicial exception without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. The addition of a “non-transitory computer readable medium having thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process” amounts to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)
As to claim 12, the claim recites a judicial exception without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. The addition of “a processing circuitry; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to” perform the recited operations amounts to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)
As to claims 14-20, the features of these claims do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because they do not add any additional elements. The elements of these claims are all part of a mental process and thus only further describe the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights