DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a non-final. Claims 1-21 are pending. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 07/15/2026, amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-21, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 07/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended integrate abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8, and 15) recite “using the GBO factory, after replicating changes to an active business graph: for a GBO/graph business relation (GBR) create or delete action, executing trigger of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type; or for a GBO/GBR update action of GBO/GBR attributes, executing trigger of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type and attribute; and creating, with the trigger and using the GBO factory, a temporary recommendation node (TRN) storing a consistency check result and providing immediate navigation and access to related nodes within the active business graph……………. are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “ordered combination goes well beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of database management, thereby amounting to significantly more than any purported abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8, and 15, are the recitations of “the specific interaction between the "trigger generator module," the "GBO factory," the "active business graph," and the dynamically instantiated "temporary recommendation node (TRN)" provides a novel mechanism for resolving data replication inconsistencies across distributed systems are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in this Office action. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-21 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include “using the GBO factory, after replicating changes to an active business graph: for a GBO/graph business relation (GBR) create or delete action, executing trigger of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type; or for a GBO/GBR update action of GBO/GBR attributes, executing trigger of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type and attribute; and creating, using the GBO factory, a temporary recommendation node (TRN) storing a consistency check result and providing immediate navigation and access to related nodes within the active business graph, wherein the TRN comprises a deletion-condition attribute that deletes the TRN when the consistency check result is resolved”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for a temporary recommendation node. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 further describe the process for a temporary recommendation node. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include automatically, a trigger generator module, trigger code, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, a computer system, one or more computers, and one or more computer memory devices. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 7, 14, and 21 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 include a trigger generator module, trigger code, business graph application, and application code. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include automatically, a trigger generator module, trigger code, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, a computer system, one or more computers, and one or more computer memory devices. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 7, 14, and 21 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 include a trigger generator module, trigger code, business graph application, and application code. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0390090), in view of Johnson et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0306176), further in view of Packirisamy et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0089792).
Regarding claim 1, Eberlein discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
creating, by a trigger generator module of a graph business object (GBO) factory, trigger code from a consistency check definition (see Eberlein, para [0065], wherein a relational database 804 can result in a DO factory 806 triggering a GDO factory 808 to invoke corresponding GDO; para [0043], wherein a graph business object (GBO) refers to a data structure in software development to represent a purchase order object and the GDO may represent a sales order object the GDR 366 may reflect a linkage between a purchase order number and a sales order number; para [0020], wherein graph vertices can be derived from objects and entities in the relational database(s) and created as GDO instances in the data graph; and para [0135], wherein a computer program, which can also be referred to or described as a program, software, a software application, a unit, a module, a software module, a script, code; and para [0020], wherein GDO and GDR methods can be used for enforcement of consistency constraints for individual GDO types);
using the GBO factory, after replicating changes to an active business graph:
for a GBO/graph business relation (GBR) create or delete action, executing the trigger code of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type (see Eberlein, para [0084], wherein an "active graph application" refers to a software application that utilizes a graph data structure where the connections and relationships between data points…..providing the graph database to one or more applications can include enabling the one or more applications to query for inter-application relationships; paras [0041]-[0042], wherein After replication of DOs to GDOs, the data graph 309 includes data of different applications in one graph…… DO instance create, change, and delete operations can be replicated to a respective GDO instance; and para [0069], wherein a graph application 820 can include GDO and GDR method calls 822a or 822b, respectively, that, when called, result in execution of GDO and GDR CRUD application methods 810a or 810b); or
for a GBO/GBR update action of GBO/GBR attributes, executing the trigger code of a specified trigger for a respective GBO/GBR type and attribute; and
creating, with the trigger code and using the GBO factory (deletion of an inconsistent graph with edges) providing immediate navigation and access to related nodes within the active business graph (see Eberlein, paras [0064]-[0065], wherein the GDO read interface 732 uses optimized graph operations and algorithms to perform operations directly on a graph…..a relational database 804 can result in a DO factory 806 triggering a GDO factory 808 to invoke corresponding GDO; para [0020], wherein graph vertices can be derived from objects and entities in the relational database(s) and created as GDO instances in the data graph; para [0071], wherein a DO instance is deleted, the GDO-factory 808 can be invoked to make the graph database 814 consistent with the DO instance deletion. Simple deletion of a related GDO instance can lead to an inconsistent graph, as there may be edges going to or from the GDO instance. Accordingly, to consistently delete a related GDO instance, the GDO factory can first delete all edges going to and from the GDO instance. Other approaches can be used. For instance, the GDO framework 812 can respond with an error message to the DO factory to a deletion request if a related GDO instance to be deleted is connected to other items in the graph; paras [0023], [0041], & [0044], wherein GDO and DO linkage can be bi-directional, in that a change to a GDO can be automatically reflected in a corresponding data object. Bi-directional linkage can allow application developers to freely navigate between graph objects or data objects, performing operations on either type, depending on what a developer decides is easier, more efficient, or more appropriate…….The additional GDO can be a node that other objects from applications can subsequently connect to, with additional connections to the node representing other applications now consuming the event; and para [0084], wherein providing the graph database to one or more applications can include enabling the one or more applications to query for inter-application relationships).
Eberlein et al. fails to explicitly disclose creating, a temporary recommendation node (TRN), wherein the TRN comprises a deletion-condition attribute that automatically deletes the TRN.
Analogous art Johnson discloses creating, with the trigger code and using the GBO factory, a temporary recommendation node (TRN), wherein the TRN comprises a deletion-condition attribute that automatically deletes the TRN (see Johnson, 1) temporary created at... 3) status policy has expired... 4) deletion condition... 5) retention time ... 6) archiving); paras [0067] & [0091], wherein the policy of director device 14 may specify a period of retention for the file or all files that are marked with the legal hold status. Therefore, the period of retention must have expired for the file before director device 14 will delete the file; para [0149], wherein Workflows are triggered by a “File Type Handler” which is a unique set of code defining action to be taken when a specific file type is executed by an endpoint device. When a policy specifies that a workflow execution is to begin, endpoint device 50 may execute one or more of applications 52 to perform the workflow. An administrator may implement any desired workflow for a policy that is automatically executed when a file corresponding to the policy is stored; para [0043], wherein director device 14 may enforce policies with respect to data stored in system 2, where the policies may include data access privileges including read and write privileges, data deletion and retention control, encryption, and/or compression; para [0082], wherein….certain files to automatically delete after a certain period of time. For example, administrator 20 may configure a policy of director device 14 to automatically delete files classified as “business records” after a legally required period for retention, e.g., seven years. Each user who has access to the files may request deletion thereof, and accelerator 12 may indicate to the users that the files have been deleted, without actually deleting the files. When recovery of the files is required (e.g., after all users have requested deletion of the files), administrator 16 may recover the files by providing a link to the files to one or more users of endpoint devices 10. After the required period for retention has elapsed, director device 14 may actually delete the files (assuming that all users have requested deletion thereof and all administrators have approved the deletion, if required). In some examples, administrators 16, 20 may force deletion of files even when users thereof have recently accessed the files. In one example, when each user of a particular file has requested deletion thereof, but the file is to be retained for a retention period, director device 14 may preserve the file until the time period for retention established by the file's policy has been exceeded).
Eberlein directed to a system for automatic creation and synchronization of graph database objects. Johnson directed to performing automatically delete after a certain period. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Eberlein, regarding the Automatic Creation and Synchronization of Graph Database Objects, to have included creating, with the trigger code and using the GBO factory, a temporary recommendation node (TRN), wherein the TRN comprises a deletion-condition attribute that automatically deletes the TRN because both inventions teach improving data integrity. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Eberlein et al. fails to explicitly disclose storing a consistency check result when the consistency check result is resolved.
Analogous art Packirisamy discloses storing a consistency check result when the consistency check result is resolved (see Packirisamy, paras [0054] & [0063], wherein a column for storing consistency check results 298; and para [0063], wherein the updated or upgraded system is not available until the consistency checks are carried out and any identified problems are resolved).
Eberlein directed to a system for automatic creation and synchronization of graph database objects. Packirisamy directed to consistency checks between database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Eberlein, regarding the Automatic Creation and Synchronization of Graph Database Objects, to have included storing a consistency check result when the consistency check result is resolved because both inventions teach improving data integrity. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the trigger code is created for the GBO/GBR create or delete action and the GBO/GBR update action (see Eberlein, para [0060], wherein Create, Read, Update, and Delete (CRUD) operations 620 and 622 can be configured, in the graph and relational worlds, for synchronization, respectively. A data object and a corresponding GDO can be bi-directionally linked, to support synchronization. For example, a data object 624 can include a reference 626 to a corresponding GDO 628 and the GDO 628 can include a reference 630 to the data object 624).
Regarding claim 3, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the trigger code is executed before or after the respective action (see Eberlein, paras [0041]-[0042], wherein After replication of DOs to GDOs, the data graph 309 includes data of different applications in one graph…… DO instance create, change, and delete operations can be replicated to a respective GDO instance; and para [0069], wherein a graph application 820 can include GDO and GDR method calls 822a or 822b, respectively, that, when called, result in execution of GDO and GDR CRUD application methods 810a or 810b).
Regarding claim 4, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the TRN is related to a GBO/GBR created, deleted, or updated during execution of the trigger code (see Eberlein, para [0065], wherein a relational database 804 can result in a DO factory 806 triggering a GDO factory 808 to invoke corresponding GDO; para [0020], wherein graph vertices can be derived from objects and entities in the relational database(s) and created as GDO instances in the data graph; and para [0071], wherein a DO instance is deleted, the GDO-factory 808 can be invoked to make the graph database 814 consistent with the DO instance deletion. Simple deletion of a related GDO instance can lead to an inconsistent graph, as there may be edges going to or from the GDO instance. Accordingly, to consistently delete a related GDO instance, the GDO factory can first delete all edges going to and from the GDO instance. Other approaches can be used. For instance, the GDO framework 812 can respond with an error message to the DO factory to a deletion request if a related GDO instance to be deleted is connected to other items in the graph).
Regarding claim 5, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising reading, by the trigger generator module, consistency check definitions by an active business graph application (see Eberlein, paras [0059]-[0061], wherein Modify operations by applications to the data graph 602 can be limited to a method layer that includes graph methods and respective GDO and GDR methods, to ensure consistency of the data graph 602. Additionally, applications can perform data object analytics 614 or graph object analytics 616…………Create, Read, Update, and Delete (CRUD) operations 620 and 622 can be configured, in the graph and relational worlds, for synchronization, respectively………Consistency operations can include performing two types of operations, including first operation(s) on the relational database 604 and second operation(s) on the graph database 602. Error handling can include handling a failure of either a first or second operation; and para [0084], wherein an "active graph application" refers to a software application that utilizes a graph data structure where the connections and relationships between data points…..providing the graph database to one or more applications can include enabling the one or more applications to query for inter-application relationships).
Regarding claim 6, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the active business graph application is configured to execute application code to operate on an active business graph by read operations executing path traversal, path analytics, and other read-path algorithms (see Eberlein, para [0084], wherein an "active graph application" refers to a software application that utilizes a graph data structure where the connections and relationships between data points…..providing the graph database to one or more applications can include enabling the one or more applications to query for inter-application relationships; and para [0070], wherein the graph application 820 can use a graph analytics engine 824 or a graph read interface 826 for graph read operations that execute path traversal, path analytics and other read-path algorithms).
Regarding claim 7, Eberlein discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the TRN is a variant of a GBO and comprises additional attributes, including one or more of: 1) type temporary; 2) created at; 3) status; 4) retention time; 5) archiving; and developer-defined attributes (see Eberlein, para [0044], wherein a retention time; para [0052], wherein a data graph can be extended by additional attributes that can define creation and modification processes, regarding which data may be stored upon Create, Update, Delete (CUD) operations and which relations and attributes can be read by different business processes).
Regarding claims 8-14 rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-7, respectively, since they are the non-transitory, computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims. Claim 8 recites additional features a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (see Eberlein, para [0110]).
Regarding claims 15-21 rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-7, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims. Claim 15 recites additional features one or more computers and one or more computer memory devices (see Eberlein, Fig. 10 and para [0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 10/05/2026
Prosecution Insights