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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Now, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are pending.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1 and 4-7 are drawn to a method (process), claims 8, and 11-14 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable media (apparatus), and claims 15 and 18-20 are drawn a system (machine) which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a system comprising the following:
receiving a login request including a user identifier;
presenting, including:
a service receiver input element presenting a selected service receiver;
a service identifier input element presenting a selected service identifier;
a graph presentation area; and
graph visualization options;
executing a search in a user account associated with the user identifier to identify a role for the user identifier;
determining that the role has access to an inferred links visualization option of the graph visualization options:
executing a query using a combination of the selected service receiver and the selected service identifier; and
generating, in the graph presentation area an interactive graph based on tuple results of the query, the interactive graph including:
representations of entities in the tuple results including the selected service receiver and the selected service identifier; and
links connecting the representations of entities;
receiving an indication that the inferred links visualization option has been activated; and
in response to receiving the indication, updating the graph presentation area to present a first style of a link between representation of entities for inferred links and a second style of link between representations of entities for direct links.
These steps are directed to transmitting and displaying data, which amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(3) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process).
These steps are directed to facilitating training of an employee, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 recite, in part, determining that the role in the user account permits access to criticality status of services in the knowledge graph database; and 28based on the determining, including an option to view criticality status of services in the graph visualization options.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite, in part, receiving an indication that the option to view criticality status of services has been activated; and in response to receiving the indication, presenting a first type of icon in the graph presentation area by a representation of a service identifier object.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recite, in part, determining that a service provider associated with the service identifier object is identified as non-material in the knowledge graph database; and in response to determining that the service provider associated with the service identifier object is identified as non-material, presenting a second type of icon by a representation of the service provider in the graph presentation area.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 recite, in part, receiving an indication of activation of the first type of icon; and in response to receiving the indication, modifying a style of link between the representation of the service provider and the representation of the service identifier object.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part, a user interface, (Specification ¶ 0014); a knowledge graph database, (Specification ¶ 0044); and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Specification ¶ 0052); and/or a processing unit, (Specification ¶ 0032), and/or a storage device, (Specification ¶ 0041). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception).
Dependent claims 4 and 6 recite, in part, the knowledge graph database (Specification ¶ 0044). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception).
Dependent claims 12, 14, and 19 recite, in part, the processing unit (Specification ¶ 0032) and/or displaying (Specification ¶ 0014). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception).
Dependent claims 11, 13, 18, and 20 recite, in part, the processing unit (Specification ¶ 0032) and the knowledge graph database (Specification ¶ 0044). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part, a user interface; a knowledge graph database; and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and/or a processing unit; and/or a storage device. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of a user interface; a knowledge graph database; and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and/or a processing unit; and/or a storage device to process and store data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claims 4 and 6 recite, in part, the knowledge graph database. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 12, 14, and 19 recite, in part, the processing unit and/or displaying. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 11, 13, 18, and 20 recite, in part, the processing unit and the knowledge graph database. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem, the claims do not recite a mental process, and that the claims are analogous to Example 42.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims nor specification shows an improvement to the function of the computer. The concept of knowledge graph technology that is "designed to handle large amounts of data and semantically link and analyze data", does not relate to the improvement to the function of the computer itself or an improvement to technology. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements of using a user interface, (Specification ¶ 0014); a knowledge graph database, (Specification ¶ 0044); and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Specification ¶ 0052); and/or a processing unit, (Specification ¶ 0032), and/or a storage device, (Specification ¶ 0041). The elements in each of these independent claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a user interface; a knowledge graph database; and/or a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and/or a processing unit; and/or a storage device, such that the claims are directed to utilizing general purpose computer components. As such, the limitations amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
The additional elements as outlined above in the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are recited as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). It is further noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include embodiments that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. Alternatively, this process can be performed by a human to arrive at the inventive solution of the invention. Even though the claimed method amounts to more than a mere collection of data the method is still an abstract idea because as noted above in at least one of its embodiments it can be performed by a human with a pen and paper, it is gathering user data and tracking data in a spreadsheet. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology. The method does not improve the computer or technology and can be performed using a generic computer. The newly claimed features are just tools used to perform the steps of the claim. As written in the claims, ‘a processing unit, a storage device comprising instructions, presenting a user interface’ is the standard computing functions of processing, storing, transmitting, and displaying data.
With regard to Example 42, this example is not analogous to the claims in the present application. The present claims do not follow the same fact pattern as Example 42. The claimed invention of Example 42, the claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message in real time to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The present application does not convert the data and transmit an update message to all of the users. The present application is directed to an arrangement for gathering user data and tracking data in a spreadsheet which is akin to managing an entity, it does not transmit a message to all of the users automatically in real time when the information is updated. Therefore, the present claims are not analogous to those in example 42.
As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method and system for identifying and discovering relationships between disparate datasets from multiple sources (US 10997244 B2) teaches a graph-based data cataloging system, product and method that structures expert knowledge and statistically driven data analytics into a system-based framework for finding and relating enhanced metadata on subject-relevant, curated datasets from disparate, externally held data sources is shown
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682