Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 02/26/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to amendment/arguments
3. Applicant’s amendments with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and found to be not persuasive. The claims are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection. See response to 101 arguments below.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as 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, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The rejection has been maintained. Please see the response to the arguments below.
Response to 101 Arguments
5. Applicants arguments on page 11 regarding claim 1 states “Accordingly, even if certain sub-steps involve "similarity" or "traversal," the claim as a whole applies those operations in a specific computer-implemented way, via a graph query platform performing an index-key-based mapping to associated stored embeddings, thus integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application rather than merely reciting "instructions to apply the exception using series of steps."….. As amended, claim 1 includes an additional, specific, computer-centric limitation requiring the graph query platform to perform a mapping from a similarity-qualified vector embedding to an index key and to associated stored embeddings. This ties the similarity determination to a concrete indexing and association mechanism that is part of the claimed technical workflow for operating on persisted embeddings in response to a query, which goes beyond merely performing a mental evaluation and "outputting the result." For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 (and claims depending therefrom) is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and withdrawal of the §101 rejection is respectfully requested”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because, generating vectors between the nodes (e.g., edges), and traversing certain nodes can be programmed with logic and/or mathematical operation to generate vectors between node/ entities, Further the amended limitations “mapping, based on a received query and by a graph query platform…”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to mapping different embeddings/ vectors based on a received query and a graph query which is designed to store, manage, and analyze data structured as nodes (entities) and edges (relationships), rather than tables, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components, or a programmed computer or a generic display or a set of processing nodes does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is, nothing in the claim elements that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, the claim limitations does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of content filtering (Step 2B: Yes). The claim is patent ineligible.
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 17 the claim limitations recite in part “generating”, “determining plurality of nodes”, “traversing ….” , “aggregating…” “determining similarity…”, “mapping…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. and/or There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. and/or There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to look at the data structure and determine different types of nodes, and traversing the nodes based on the relationship, mapping based on the query and the stored embeddings/ vectors, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “system”, “processor”, memory”, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components and additional elements such as searching which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of a data gathering process. Further “generating…”; “persisting/ storing….”, “indexing…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of a data gathering process. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of “generating…”; “persisting/ storing….”, “indexing…” amount to mere data outputting which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The “generating…”; “persisting/ storing….”, “indexing…” elements that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 limitation “determining the first plurality of nodes includes executing a graph query of the graph database”. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement by looking at the graph and determine the plurality of nodes based on a query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17 limitation “the graph query includes a node type and a node property as parameters”. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement based on the query, determine the node type and the node property as parameters. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18 limitation “determining the second plurality of nodes includes executing a graph projection”. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement by looking at the graph and determine the plurality of nodes based on a query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19 limitation “each node-level vector embedding is generated from a node captured in the graph projection” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to map the node vectors to the respective nodes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20 limitation “the node property defined by each node of the first plurality of nodes is a string data type” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to define that the property as a string type”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20 limitation “each index key in the vector database is related to a lookup key that uniquely identifies a node in the graph database” his limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to identify the node in the database based on the index. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject matter
7. The following claims are allowable, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated this rejection as presented in this office action. 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 SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights