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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 2/5/2026 for application 18/533,389.
Claims 1-25 have been examined and are pending. Claims 11 and 18-21 have been amended. Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 22 are independent claims. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 11 and 18-21 has been removed in response to the amendment filed 2/5/2026.
The rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn in response to the amendment filed 2/5/2026.
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 2/5/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as follows: Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 11 recites sufficiently definite structure and should not be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The claim should instead be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The term "machine learning system" conveys definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in the context of distributed graph analytics and hybrid cloud computing. Applicant respectfully requests that the interpretation under §112(f) be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. It’s noted the specification provides sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. It’s noted that the generic place holder “system” is preceded by the term “machine learning;” However, the term “machine learning” is not a structural modifier as it’s generally considered a functional, black-box description rather than a specific structural modifier. See Ex Parte Joon Woo Son (PTAB March 19, 2024 - Appeal No. 2023-000761); wherein The PTAB found that simply reciting functional language or generic algorithmic terms like "machine learning" or "algorithm" is insufficient to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It's also noted that as the specification provides corresponding structures for the claimed means-plus functions (i.e., discussions and/or algorithms to perform the claimed functions). Paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s original disclosure states “ANNs can be embodied as so-called “neuromorphic” systems of interconnected processor elements that act as simulated “neurons” and exchange “messages” between each other in the form of electronic signals.” The claim is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefinite; Otherwise, U.S.C. 112(a) and/or U.S.C. 112(b) would be applied.
Applicant argues as follows: Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is improper under the USPTO's subject matter eligibility framework set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04- 2106.07. When properly analyzed under Step 2A and Step 2B, the pending claims are patent- eligible. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner asserts that the limitations of "partitioning data elements, “computing a resultant number of triangles," and "computing a final number of triangles" constitute mental processes because they could allegedly be performed using pen and paper. This assertion improperly expands the mental process grouping beyond its lawful scope. As emphasized in the August 4, 2025, USPTO memorandum (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf), a claim recites a mental process only when the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind. The claimed operations here cannot practically be performed mentally. The claims require partitioning large-scale graph data into non-overlapping subgraphs, augmenting those subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to generate p-induced subgraphs, distributing the p-induced subgraphs to multiple servers in a public cloud environment, computing triangle counts in parallel across those servers, and recombining results at an on-premise server using corrective subtraction logic that accounts for privacy-preserving randomization. These operations involve large graph datasets, randomized augmentation, and distributed cloud computation, which cannot realistically or practically be performed in the human mind, even with the assistance of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims do not fall within the mental process grouping under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), consistent with the guidance reiterated in the August 2025 memorandum.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 22, the claims are directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “partitioning data elements”; “computing a resultant number of triangles;” and “computing a final number of triangles”. Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues as follows: Turning to Step 2A, Prong Two, even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application and therefore are not directed to a judicial exception. The claims provides a technical solution to at least the technical problem in distributed graph analytics of how to perform accurate triangle counting on sensitive graph data using hybrid cloud architectures while preserving data privacy. (See Specification at paras. [0012]-[0013], [0038], [0040]). The claims, including Claim 1, recite a sequence of operations that includes partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs, modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs, distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to separate servers in a public cloud environment, computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) for each p-induced subgraph on the public cloud, and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server. Additionally, some claims, such as Claim 7, recite a sequence of operations that further include augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs; transmitting the p-integer to an on-premise server; and computing a final number of triangles associated with subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs via the on-premise server by adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections. This is not a result-oriented or outcome-based claim. Rather, the claims specify how privacy preservation is executed in a distributed computing environment. The augmentation with random vertices and edges is not insignificant activity. Instead, it constitutes a core privacy-preserving mechanism that enables safe use of public cloud resources without exposing sensitive graph structure. Under MPEP §2106.05(a), this represents an improvement to a technical field, specifically distributed graph processing and privacy-preserving computation. Similar to Example 47 of the July 2024 AI Subject Matter Eligibility Update, the claims, including Claim 1 use computational results to effect a concrete technical outcome, modifying a plurality of non- overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs and distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment, rather than merely producing or reporting data. Even further, some claims, such as Claim 7, include the outcome of augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs, computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs for each of the servers located on the public cloud, transmitting the p-integer to an on- premise server, and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections. In addition, the claims apply the recited techniques using specific computing environments, namely public cloud servers and an on-premise server, in a non-generic and coordinated manner, satisfying the "particular machine" and meaningful application considerations under MPEP §§2106.05(b) and 2106.04(d). Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are not directed to a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the steps of “modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs…. “ However, said steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said steps are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., transceiver, controller etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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.
Applicant argues as follows: With regard to Step 2B, the ordered combination of limitations presented in at least Claim 1, including graph partitioning, randomized augmentation, distributed execution across public cloud servers, and as described in some claims such as Claim 7, corrective recombination at an on-premise server, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner has not cited, and the record does not support, any evidence demonstrating that this specific combination of privacy-preserving graph augmentation and hybrid-cloud execution was routine at the time of filing. As emphasized in the August 2025 memorandum, examiners must avoid characterizing detailed technical mechanisms as mere "apply it" instructions. Here, the claims do not simply apply an abstract idea using a computer; instead, they restructure how graph data is processed across distributed systems to achieve a concrete technical improvement. Accordingly, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Applicant argues as follows: Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions of King fail to disclose, teach, or suggest either limitation. The Examiner relies upon King [0182] to allegedly teach "partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs." However, the Examiner's mapping conflates hardware topology subdivision with data-level graph partitioning, which are distinct and non-analogous concepts. King repeatedly emphasizes that automorphisms "map the problem graph onto itself such that the mapping preserves the connectivity between the vertices," and that "the number of edges and the number of vertices remains the same when a graph automorphism is generated." (King, [0096]). Thus, King expressly teaches preserving the full set of vertices and edges of the problem graph, rather than modifying subgraphs derived from that graph.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 1 uses broad claim language and Examiner is permitted broadest reasonable interpretation in analyzing the claimed invention. Claim 1 is properly rejected by the combination of King, Saxena, and Rossi. Regarding claim 1, King discloses, paragraph 0182, a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising: partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs by disclosing sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0182, 0183, 0111, modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph. King, in paragraph 0126, discloses embedding a problem which information on properties of components are used.
Applicant argues as follows: Claims 4-6 each depend from Claim 1 and expressly incorporate all limitations thereof. As discussed above, Claim 1 is neither taught nor suggested by King, alone or in combination with Saxena and Rossi, at least because the cited references fail to disclose partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs and modifying such subgraphs to generate p-induced subgraphs. Because Claims 4-6 necessarily include the same deficiencies by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1, they likewise are not rendered obvious by the cited combination, and the § 103 rejections of Claims 4-6 are therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 4, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, paragraph 0182, 0183, 0111, 0101, wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph; modify, edge, vertex, removing edge .Regarding claim 5, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraph 0056 of Rossi, further comprising transmitting the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) to the on-premise server by disclosing system obtains graphlet counts. Regarding claim 6, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraphs 0032, 0056 of Rossi, wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to the number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles by disclosing induced subgraph, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles.
Applicant argues as follows: Claim 7 recites the limitation of "augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs." As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, King fails to disclose "partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs," instead being limited to subdividing a hardware topology of a quantum processor and embedding complete replicas of an unchanged problem graph therein. For that reason alone, King necessarily cannot disclose augmenting such non-overlapping subgraphs, because the predicate data-level subgraphs required by Claim 7 are not present in King. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that King were interpreted to disclose non- overlapping subgraphs, King does not disclose or suggest "augmenting" those subgraphs with new vertices or random edge connections. To the contrary, King repeatedly emphasizes preserving the structure of the problem graph, expressly teaching that graph automorphisms map the problem graph onto itself while maintaining the same vertices and edges. (King, [0096]). King therefore affirmatively teaches away from introducing artificial vertices or randomized edges, which would alter graph topology rather than preserve it. Likewise, Saxena and Rossi, either alone or in combination with King, fail to disclose the cited limitation of "augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs," as required by Claim 7. Thus the § 103 rejection of Claim 7 is therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 7, King discloses, paragraphs 0140 and 0056, a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising: by disclosing protection, obfuscating data; hybrid computing; paragraph 0182, partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs by disclosing sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graph; paragraphs 0182, 0183, 0111, 0101, augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph; modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, .Saxena discloses, paragraph 0032 and 0024, distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment by disclosing distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment. Rossi discloses, paragraphs 0032 and 0056, computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs for each of the servers located on the public cloud environment by disclosing induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles; paragraph 0056, transmitting the p-integer to an on-premise server by disclosing system obtains graphlet counts; paragraphs 0051, 0056, computing a final number of triangles associated with subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs via the on-premise server by adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections by disclosing final graphlet count, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles.
Applicant argues as follows: Claim 10 depends from Claim 7 and expressly incorporates all limitations thereof. As discussed above, Claim 7 is neither taught nor suggested by King, alone or in combination with Saxena and Rossi, at least because the cited references fail to disclose partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs and augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p- induced subgraphs, as expressly required by Claim 7. Because Claim 10 necessarily includes the same deficiencies by virtue of its dependency on Claim 7, it likewise is not rendered obvious by the cited combination, and the §103 rejection of Claim 10 is therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 10, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 7. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, paragraphs 0182, 0183, 0111, 0101 of King, wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph; modify, edge, vertex, removing edge.
Applicant argues as follows: Independent Claims 11, 17, and 22 each recite limitations that are identical or synonymous to the requirement of "modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs," as set forth in Claim 1. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, King fails to disclose or suggest partitioning data elements of a graph G into non-overlapping subgraphs, and therefore necessarily fails to disclose or suggest modifying such subgraphs to generate p-induced subgraphs. Neither Saxena nor Rossi cures this deficiency, as neither reference discloses modifying data-level subgraphs. Since the cited combination fails to teach or suggest this limitation, Independent Claims 11, 17, and 22 are not rendered obvious by King in view of Saxena and Rossi, and the §103 rejections of Claims 11, 17, and 22 are therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 11, King discloses, paragraph 0182, a computing system, comprising: partition data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs by disclosing sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraphs 0182, 0183, 0111, modify each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph. Saxena discloses, paragraphs 0032, 0024 distribute each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment by disclosing distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment. Rossi discloses, paragraph 0032, a machine learning system for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the system configured to: by disclosing machine learning; paragraphs 0032 and 0056, compute a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment by disclosing induced subgraph, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles; paragraph 0051 and 0056, compute a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server by disclosing final graphlet count, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles.
Applicant argues as follows: Claims 14-16 depend from Claim 11, Claims 20 and 21 depend from Claim 17, and Claims 24 and 25 depend from Claim 22, and each expressly incorporates all limitations of its respective independent claim.
Examiner respectfully notes regarding claim 14, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraphs 0182, 0183, 0111, and 0101 of King, wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph; modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, Regarding claim 15, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraph 0056 of Rossi, further comprising transmitting the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) to the on-premise server by disclosing system obtains graphlet counts. Regarding claim 16, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraphs 0032, 0056 of Rossi, wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to the number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles by disclosing induced subgraph, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles; in paragraph 0036 of Saxena, subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles by disclosing prunes or removes redundant computations, sub-graphs.
Applicant argues as follows: As discussed above, Independent Claims 11, 17, and 22 are neither taught nor suggested by King, alone or in combination with Saxena and Rossi, at least because the cited references fail to disclose partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs and modifying or augmenting such subgraphs to generate p-induced subgraphs, as expressly required by those independent claims. Because Claims 14-16, 20-21, and 24-25 necessarily include the same deficiencies by virtue of their dependency on Claims 11, 17, and 22, respectively, they likewise are not rendered obvious by the cited combination, and the §103 rejections of Claims 14-16, 20-21, and 24-25 are therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 11, King discloses, paragraph 0182, a computing system, comprising: partition data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs by disclosing sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraphs 0182, 0183, 0111, modify each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs by disclosing non-overlapping sub-graphs; sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; induced subgraph. Saxena discloses, paragraphs 0032, 0024 distribute each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment by disclosing distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment. Rossi discloses, paragraph 0032, a machine learning system for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the system configured to: by disclosing machine learning; paragraphs 0032 and 0056, compute a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment by disclosing induced subgraph, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles; paragraph 0051 and 0056, compute a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server by disclosing final graphlet count, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles.
Applicant argues as follows: Claims 8 and 9 each depend from Claim 7 and incorporate all limitations thereof. Claim 7 recites, "augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs." For the reasons set forth above, the combination of King, Saxena, and Rossi fails to disclose, teach, or suggest this augmentation of each non-overlapping data-level subgraph with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs. Kalantzis does not disclose, teach, or suggest augmenting each of a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs, and thus fails to remedy the deficiency of the base combination. Accordingly, because Claims 8 and 9 necessarily include the same missing limitations by virtue of their dependency on Claim 7, they likewise are not rendered obvious by the cited combination, and the § 103 rejections of Claims 8 and 9 are therefore improper, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn.. Applicant respectfully traverses.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 8, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 7. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters. Kalantzis discloses, paragraph 0002, wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters by disclosing triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio. .Regarding claim 9, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 8. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose, in paragraph 0002 of Kalantzis, wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio by disclosing triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 272-5368 to schedule an interview.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a machine learning system … configured to …partition/ modify/ distribute/ compute/ compute in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s original disclosure states “One or more embodiments described herein can utilize machine learning techniques to perform tasks. More specifically, one or more embodiments described herein can incorporate and utilize rule-based decision making and artificial intelligence (AI) reasoning to accomplish the various operations described herein, namely containers. A container is a VCE that uses operating-system-level virtualization.” Paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s original disclosure states “ANNs can be embodied as so-called “neuromorphic” systems of interconnected processor elements that act as simulated “neurons” and exchange “messages” between each other in the form of electronic signals.” and “A computer program running on an ordinary operating system can utilize all resources of that computer, such as connected devices, files and folders, network shares, CPU power, and quantifiable hardware capabilities.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 22, the claims are directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “partitioning data elements”; “computing a resultant number of triangles;” and “computing a final number of triangles”. Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the steps of “modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs…. “ However, said steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said steps are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., transceiver, controller etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-21, and 23-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claim 6 recites the limitation “adding the p-integer” and “subtracting a number of triangles”. Said limitations/operations are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities and do not make the claims statutory. Therefore, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-21, and 23-25 are also 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 11, 14-17, 20-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US20170300817), filed April 13, 2017, in view of Saxena (WO2023114685), filed December 13, 2021, and Rossi (US20180365019), filed June 20, 2017.
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising: partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs);
modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph).
King discloses induced subgraphs, but does not explicitly disclose distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment.
However, in an analogous art, Saxena discloses distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saxena with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King to include distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment to provide users with the benefits of efficient evaluation of large scale mathematical calculations (Saxena: paragraph 0021).
King and Saxena disclose subgraphs and servers but do not explicitly disclose computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and
computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server.
However, in an analogous art, Rossi discloses computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rossi with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King and Saxena to include computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server to provide users with the benefits of balancing a data mining workload (Rossi: paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 4, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, ) .
Regarding claim 5, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose further comprising transmitting the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) to the on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0056, system obtains graphlet counts).
Regarding claim 6, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to the number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Regarding claim 7, King discloses a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising: (King, paragraph 0140, protection, obfuscating data; paragraph 0056, hybrid computing);
partitioning data elements of a graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs; (King, paragraph 0182, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs);
augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with new vertices and random edge connections to create p-induced subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge).
King does not explicitly disclose distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment.
However, in an analogous art, Saxena discloses distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saxena with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King to include distributing each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment to provide users with the benefits of efficient evaluation of large scale mathematical calculations (Saxena: paragraph 0021).
King and Saxena do not explicitly disclose computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs for each of the servers located on the public cloud environment; transmitting the p-integer to an on-premise server; and
computing a final number of triangles associated with subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs via the on-premise server by adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections.
However, in an analogous art, Rossi discloses computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs for each of the servers located on the public cloud environment (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
transmitting the p-integer to an on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0056, system obtains graphlet counts);
computing a final number of triangles associated with subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs via the on-premise server by adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rossi with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King and Saxena to include computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs for each of the servers located on the public cloud environment; transmitting the p-integer to an on-premise server; and computing a final number of triangles associated with subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs via the on-premise server by adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the subgraphs formed by coupling the p-induced subgraphs and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections to provide users with the benefits of balancing a data mining workload (Rossi: paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 10, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 7. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, ).
Regarding claim 11, King discloses a computing system, comprising: partition data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs);
modify each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph).
King does not explicitly disclose distribute each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment.
However, in an analogous art, Saxena discloses distribute each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saxena with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King to include distribute each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment to provide users with the benefits of efficient evaluation of large scale mathematical calculations (Saxena: paragraph 0021).
King and Saxena do not explicitly disclose a machine learning system for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the machine learning system configured to: compute a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and compute a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server.
However, in an analogous art, Rossi discloses a machine learning system for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the machine learning system configured to: (Rossi, paragraph 0032, machine learning);
compute a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
compute a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rossi with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King and Saxena to include a machine learning system for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the machine learning system configured to: compute a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and compute a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server to provide users with the benefits of balancing a data mining workload (Rossi: paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 14, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections. (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, )
Regarding claim 15, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose further comprising transmitting the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) to the on-premise server. (Rossi, paragraph 0056, system obtains graphlet counts)
Regarding claim 16, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computing system of Claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to the number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles (Saxena, paragraph 0036, prunes or removes redundant computations, sub-graphs).
Regarding claim 17, King discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium (see Applicant’s original specification, paragraph 0018, which discloses “a computer readable storage medium… is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals”) having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to (King, paragraph 0078, computer, program, memory);
partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs; (King, paragraph 0182, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs);
modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs; (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph).
King does not explicitly disclose perform operations for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising; distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment; subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles.
However, in an analogous art, Saxena discloses perform operations for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment);
distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment);
subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles (Saxena, paragraph 0026, pre-generated graph is update, modified, or otherwise adjusted in response to data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saxena with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King to include perform operations for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments, the method comprising; distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment; subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles to provide users with the benefits of efficient evaluation of large scale mathematical calculations (Saxena: paragraph 0021).
King and Saxena do not explicitly disclose computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for each of the separate servers located on the public cloud environment; and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server, wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles.
However, in an analogous art, Rossi discloses computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for each of the separate servers located on the public cloud environment (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rossi with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King and Saxena to include computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for each of the separate servers located on the public cloud environment; and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server, wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to a number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles to provide users with the benefits of balancing a data mining workload (Rossi: paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 20, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computer program product of claim 17. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, ).
Regarding claim 21, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computer program product of claim 17. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose further comprising transmitting the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) to the on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0056, system obtains graphlet counts).
Regarding claim 22, King a system comprising: a memory having computer readable instructions for implementing a method for preserving privacy by counting triangles on a graph G for hybrid cloud environments; and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (King, paragraph 0078, computer, program, memory, paragraph 0140, protection, obfuscating data; paragraph 0056, hybrid computing);
partitioning data elements of the graph G into a plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs);
modifying each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs to generate a plurality of p-induced subgraphs (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph).
King does not explicitly disclose distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment.
However, in an analogous art, Saxena discloses distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment (Saxena, paragraph 0032, distribute each sub-graph to a respective computing device 170, 170a-n of a distributed computing system; servers; paragraph 0024, on-premises computing device, public, private, or hybrid cloud environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saxena with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King to include distributing each of the plurality of p-induced subgraphs to a separate server located on a public cloud environment to provide users with the benefits of efficient evaluation of large scale mathematical calculations (Saxena: paragraph 0021).
King and Saxena do not explicitly disclose computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server.
However, in an analogous art, Rossi discloses computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles);
computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server (Rossi, paragraph 0051, final graphlet count, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rossi with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King and Saxena to include computing a resultant number of triangles (p-integer) associated with each of the p-induced subgraphs for the separate server located on the public cloud environment; and computing a final number of triangles associated with the resultant number of triangles (p-integer) via an on-premise server to provide users with the benefits of balancing a data mining workload (Rossi: paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 24, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the system of claim 22. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein distributing includes augmenting each of the plurality of non-overlapping subgraphs with at least one of a set of new vertices and random edge connections (King, paragraph 0182, non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0183, sub-divided into non-overlapping sub-graphs; paragraph 0111, induced subgraph; paragraph 0101, modify, edge, vertex, removing edge, ).
Regarding claim 25, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the system of claim 22. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein computing a final number of triangles includes, adding the p-integer to the number of triangles associated with the p-induced subgraphs to create a semi-final number of triangles (Rossi, paragraph 0032, induced subgraph, paragraph 0056, graphlet counts such as counts for triangles); and subtracting a number of triangles that have at least one added edge connection to previously added random edge connections from the semi-final number of triangles(Saxena, paragraph 0036, prunes or removes redundant computations, sub-graphs).
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US20170300817), filed April 13, 2017, in view of Saxena (WO2023114685), filed December 13, 2021, and Rossi (US20180365019), filed June 20, 2017, and further in view of Kalantzis (US20220300575), filed March 22, 2021.
Regarding claim 2, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Kalantzis discloses wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalantzis with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King, Saxena, and Rossi to include wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters to provide users with the benefits of determining the count of triangles to facilitate spam/ anomaly detection, link recommendation, degeneracy estimation, and query optimization (Kalantzis: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 3, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 1. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Regarding claim 8, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 7. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Kalantzis discloses wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalantzis with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King, Saxena, and Rossi to include wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters to provide users with the benefits of determining the count of triangles to facilitate spam/ anomaly detection, link recommendation, degeneracy estimation, and query optimization (Kalantzis: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 9, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the method of claim 8. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Regarding claim 12, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose computing system of claim 11. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Kalantzis discloses wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalantzis with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King, Saxena, and Rossi to include wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters to provide users with the benefits of determining the count of triangles to facilitate spam/ anomaly detection, link recommendation, degeneracy estimation, and query optimization (Kalantzis: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 13, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose computing system of claim 12. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Regarding claim 18, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computer program product of claim 17. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Kalantzis discloses wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalantzis with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King, Saxena, and Rossi to include wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters to provide users with the benefits of determining the count of triangles to facilitate spam/ anomaly detection, link recommendation, degeneracy estimation, and query optimization (Kalantzis: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 19, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose the computer program product of claim 18. King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Regarding claim 23, King, Saxena, and Rossi disclose system of Claim 22. King, Saxena, and Rossi do not explicitly disclose wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters, wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio.
However, in an analogous art, Kalantzis discloses wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters, wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio (Kalantzis, paragraph 0002, triangle counting, clustering coefficient, transitivity ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalantzis with the method/ method/ computing system/ computer program product of King, Saxena, and Rossi to include wherein partitioning includes partitioning the data elements responsive to a set of graph parameters, wherein the graph parameters include at least one of a clustering coefficient and a transitivity ratio to provide users with the benefits of determining the count of triangles to facilitate spam/ anomaly detection, link recommendation, degeneracy estimation, and query optimization (Kalantzis: paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
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 WALTER J MALINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5368. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:30 MTWH.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/W.J.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights