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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 21, 28, and 35 being independent. Claims 21,24, 28, 31, 35, and 38 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 September 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph of claims 21-40, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph of claims 21-40 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 21-40, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 21-40 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 21, 28, and 35 it remains unclear as to how the data is being analyzed to determine the inconsistencies and if the analyzed data is used in the claims. The claims call for analyzing the data to determine inconsistencies in the data, but does not appear to use analyzed data in further processing. In addition, processing the data to determine a repeating pattern and subsequently segmenting the data appears to be unclear in light of the corresponding disclosure. The disclosure in paragraph 27 sets forth “raw data handler 102 may recognize repeated patterns in large batches and split the large batches based on the patterns. For example, if raw data handler 102 receives a group of pictures, each having a caption, raw data handler 102 may split each picture and corresponding caption into an individualized segment”. It is not clear as to how the data, which could be a single data type, is processed to determine repeating patterns.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection of claims 21-40, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The scope of the current claimed limitations remains patentably indistinct from those in US Patents 11,080,904 and 11,798,208. As such, the double patenting rejection of claims 21-40 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to applicant’s rescission of any disclaimer from related applications, have been fully considered. The examiner recognizes applicant’s generic statement “To the extent that the claims in this application have the same or similar terms to those in the parent application, Applicant hereby rescinds any disclaimers originating from arguments made during the prosecution of the parent application. Applicant invites the Examiner to revisit the relevant prior art in the parent application” and applicant’s citation to Hakim v. Cannon. The examiner notes that in Hakim v. Cannon, the court set forth “Although a disclaimer made during prosecution can be rescinded, permitting recapture of the disclaimed scope, the prosecution history must be sufficiently clear to inform the examiner that the previous disclaimer, and the prior art that it was made to avoid, need to be re-visited”, see page 7, paragraph 1. Applicant’s statement does not set forth a statement that is sufficiently clear to inform the public or the examiner exactly what disclaimer is being rescinded and what prior art it was made to avoid – rather applicant’s statement is to rescind any disclaimers and invite the examiner to review the entire patent prosecution history.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,080,904.
Current Application (18/471773)
US Patent 11,080,904
21. A computer-implemented method for converting data into graph structures, the method including:
receiving, by a server processor, data from a user device, wherein the data corresponds with at least one or more data types comprising a file, photo, video, string, text, or number;
determining, by the server processor, binary fields, input variables, and a file type for each of the data from the user device;
analyzing the data to determine inconsistencies within the data;
processing the data to determine a repeating pattern;
segmenting the data based on the determined repeating pattern;
determining a model defining a graphical database for each of the segmented data based on the determined repeating pattern and the determined binary fields, inputs, and file types; and
sending a first model of a first segment of data to a receiving entity for generating a graph structure, the graph structure comprising the segmented data recallable by executing a data request.
1. A computer-implemented method for converting raw data into graph structures, the method including:
receiving, by a processor of a graph interface, a batch of raw data from a user device, wherein the batch of raw data includes one or more data types, and wherein the one or more data types correspond with at least one of text files, photos, videos, and audio files;
determining whether the batch of raw data includes a repeating pattern of data;
based on determining that the batch of raw data includes a repeating pattern of data, splitting the batch of raw data into individualized segments of raw data;
determining a model for the individualized segments of raw data, wherein the model defines a graph structure for the individualized segments of raw data, wherein determining the model includes:
identifying one or more stored models, each of the one or more stored models including at least one of required fields, disallowed fields, and field restrictions; and
determining whether the individualized segments of raw data include one of the required fields, disallowed fields, and field restrictions; converting the individualized segments of raw data into modeled data to fit the model; and
sending the modeled data to a receiving entity for generating at least a portion of a graph structure based on the modeled data.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 21 in the current application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 in the US Patent. The other minor differences between the claim 1 in the US Patent and claim 1 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention.
Similar rationale applies to independent claims 28 and 35 in the current application and independent claims 8 and 15 of the US Patent.
Similar mapping can be performed for each of the corresponding dependent claims in the current application and the US Patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,798,208.
Current Application (18/471773)
US Patent 11,798,208
21. A computer-implemented method for converting data into graph structures, the method including:
receiving, by a server processor, data from a user device, wherein the data corresponds with at least one or more data types comprising a file, photo, video, string, text, or number;
determining, by the server processor, binary fields, input variables, and a file type for each of the data from the user device;
analyzing the data to determine inconsistencies within the data;
processing the data to determine a repeating pattern;
segmenting the data based on the determined repeating pattern;
determining a model defining a graphical database for each of the segmented data based on the determined repeating pattern and the determined binary fields, inputs, and file types; and
sending a first model of a first segment of data to a receiving entity for generating a graph structure, the graph structure comprising the segmented data recallable by executing a data request.
1. A computer-implemented method for converting raw data into graph structures, the method including: receiving, by a server processor, a batch of raw data from a user device, wherein the batch of raw data corresponds with at least one or more data types comprising text files, image files, and audio files;
based on the data type, determining at least one of required data, optional data, or disallowed data;
determining whether the required data and optional data of the batch of raw data includes a repeating pattern of data;
splitting the required data and optional data of the batch of raw data into individualized segments of raw data based on the repeating pattern of raw data;
determining a model for the individualized segments of raw data; and
sending the required and optional modeled data to a receiving entity for generating at least a portion of a graph structure based on the required and optional modeled data.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 21 in the current application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 in the US Patent. The other minor differences between the claim 1 in the US Patent and claim 1 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention.
Similar rationale applies to independent claims 28 and 35 in the current application and independent claims 8 and 15 of the US Patent.
Similar mapping can be performed for each of the corresponding dependent claims in the current application and the US Patent.
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 21-40 is/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.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite “analyzing the data to determine inconsistencies within the data; processing the data to determine a repeating pattern; segmenting the data based on the determined repeating pattern...”. The originally filed disclosure sets forth in paragraph 29, “In an embodiment, raw data handler 102 may verify the raw data. Raw data handler 102 may also eliminate erroneous data before further processing. For example, raw data handler 102 may check the raw data for accuracy and inconsistencies. Proofreading raw data may prevent errors in further processing by system 100. When raw data handler 102 is finished processing the raw data, raw data handler 102 may transfer the raw data to graph interface 110”.
Given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves and/or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the data is being analyzed to determine the inconsistencies and if the analyzed data is used in the claims. The claims call for analyzing the data to determine inconsistencies in the data, but does not appear to use analyzed data in further processing. In addition, processing the data to determine a repeating pattern and subsequently segmenting the data appears to be unclear in light of the corresponding disclosure. The disclosure in paragraph 27 sets forth “raw data handler 102 may recognize repeated patterns in large batches and split the large batches based on the patterns. For example, if raw data handler 102 receives a group of pictures, each having a caption, raw data handler 102 may split each picture and corresponding caption into an individualized segment”. It is not clear as to how the data, which could be a single data type, is processed to determine repeating patterns.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 21-40 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 and the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 12,094,018 to O’Malley teaches validating data preventing erroneous data, see for instance, column 4, lines 3-10, column 251, lines 5-23, and fig. 9b.
US PG Publication 2003/0023556 to Holloway teaches that it is possible to store the payee’s photograph as a field in the database, itself, provided that the database is one which is capable of storing a binary large object (BLOB), see paragraph 18.
US PG Publication 2008/0192069 to Wanzke teaches looking for repeating patterns or trends in overlaid segments, see for instance, paragraph 14.
US PG Publication 2011/0299765 to Baker teaches validating data, see for instance, paragraphs 112-114.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights