DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made 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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 03/30/2026, 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 03/30/2026 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 any purported 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.
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, 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”.
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 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 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 Guzenda et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0250140), 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 (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);
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).
Analogous art Guzenda discloses creating, with the trigger code and using the GBO factory, a temporary recommendation node (TRN) (see Guzenda, paras [0045] & [0072], wherein execute code included in one or more program…..graph structuring and query execution often produce Suboptimal performance behaviors; and para [0079], wherein…..step 12.12 creates and populates a temporary node record list L.NR that includes all node records NR 01-NR.N that indicate a node N61-N128 that is positioned within a subgraph criterion, such as a prespecified span value from the node record NR.01-NR.N selected in step 12.06. The system 100 next, in step 12.14, deletes all node records NR.01-NR.N from the list L.NR of step 12.08 that are currently assigned to or referenced by a Zone record Z.REC.01-Z.REC.N……….).
Eberlein directed to a system for automatic creation and synchronization of graph database objects. Guzenda directed to performing searches of graphs as represented within an information technology system. 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) 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.
Analogous art Packirisamy discloses storing a consistency check result (see Packirisamy, paras [0054] & [0063], wherein a column for storing consistency check results 298).
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 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8am - 5pm) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 04/13/2026
Prosecution Insights