DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the RCE dated 12/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 fall within the statutory category of process claims and claims 16-20 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Please see below.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claims recite a Judicial Exception.
Claims 1 and 16, recite “compiling an unbounded regular path graph query into a relational execution tree, wherein: the unbounded regular path graph query is issued against a graph having vertices and edges stored in a plurality of tables” in a BRI, is mentally performable with the usage of pen and paper as a human mind recognizes characters, words, meanings of the query, concepts and relationships between concepts can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and where the question/query starts and ends which are in the query characters/words. Thus, the compiling step is a mental process.
The steps of “compiling the unbounded regular path graph query comprises: splitting the unbounded regular path graph query into a prefix pattern-matching portion, a recursive pattern-matching portion, and a suffix pattern- matching portion; generating a graph algorithm function (GAF) node for the recursive pattern- matching portion in the relational execution tree; generating a nested loops join node in the relational execution tree, wherein: the nested loops join node has a left child node comprising the prefix pattern-matching portion and a right child node comprising the GAF node, and the GAF node has a left child node comprising a recursive graph pattern- matching algorithm and a right child node comprising the suffix pattern-matching portion; executing the relational execution tree, wherein executing the relational execution tree generates a result set of paths in the graph that satisfy the unbounded regular path graph query;” in a BRI, are mentally performable with the usage of pen and paper as a human mind recognizes characters, words, meanings of the query, concepts and relationships between concepts, including an observation, evaluation where splitting an unbounded regular path graph into prefix (the path to the loop), recursive (segment represents the loop) and suffix segments (the path after the loop) is a fundamental strategy for evaluating path graph queries.
To the extent of splitting a query into the prefix, recursive, and suffix portions is a form of indexing, this is part of the mental process of searching/matching, similar to Intellectual Ventures v. Eerie, 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“invention is drawn to the abstract idea of "creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data.") Accordingly, the steps recite mental processes, groupings of abstract ideas.
The steps appear to recite mentally performable processes, as one can mentally do with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components including recited “a relational database system”, “the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, “One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause: a relational database system”. Not only query terms are split into prefix, recursive, and suffix portions but also stored in a plurality of tables for being matched/compared to determine result(s). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements “a relational database system”, “the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, “One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause: a relational database system” in claims 1 and 16. See also 2106.05(g). The additional elements method/computer-readable medium recited at a high-level of generality which do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, thus, not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1, 16 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B: “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
The claims do not include additional elements 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. Here, said claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine and conventional. More particularly, the claim recites generic computer components (e.g., “a relational database system”, “the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, “One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause: a relational database system” which is mere apply it under MPEP 2106.05(f). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network--with no further specification--is not even arguably inventive”).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Claims 2-6, 7-15, and similar claims 17-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2-6 recite “wherein compiling the unbounded regular path graph query further comprises: determining a set of one or more prefix specializations for the prefix pattern-matching portion of the unbounded regular path graph query; determining a transitive closure of reachable vertex and edge tables for the one or more prefix specializations; and determining a set of one or more suffix specializations for the suffix pattern-matching portion of the unbounded regular path graph query based on the transitive closure of reachable vertex and edge tables”, “wherein the transitive closure is used to reduce the set of vertex and edge tables considered in the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm”, “translating the set of one or more prefix specializations and the set of one or more suffix specializations to SQL”, “wherein executing the relational execution tree comprises: executing the prefix pattern-matching portion to generate a set of prefix result rows, wherein each row in the set of prefix result rows represents a pattern in the graph that matches the prefix pattern-matching portion of the unbounded regular path graph query; executing the nested loops join node by: fetching a given row from the set of prefix result rows; calling the GAF node to execute the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm based on a starting vertex from the given row to generate a set of recursive graph algorithm result rows, wherein each row in the set of recursive graph algorithm result rows represents a vertex that is reachable from the starting vertex and matches a starting vertex of the suffix pattern-matching portion, and to execute the suffix pattern-matching portion to generate a set of GAF result rows; fetching the set of GAF result rows; and performing a join of the set of prefix result rows and the set of GAF result rows”, “the graph comprises one or more vertex tables, each execution of the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm generates a side table for each of the one or more vertex tables to form one or more side tables, and executing the suffix pattern-matching portion reads from the one or more side tables for path and destination information”.
Claims 7-15 recite “wherein the one or more side tables comprise one or more cursor duration temporary tables (CDTs)”, “wherein executing the suffix pattern- matching portion comprises one or more joins between the one or more side tables and vertex or edge tables of the graph”, “wherein each of the one or more side tables stores a row for each step in a path that reaches a destination vertex from the starting vertex”, “each row of a given side table stores path information comprising a property value of a vertex or edge for a corresponding step, and the suffix pattern-matching portion performs an aggregation of the property values of the steps of a path from the starting vertex to the destination vertex”, “wherein the unbounded regular path graph query is a reachability query and wherein each of the one or more side tables stores a row for each destination vertex that is reachable from the starting vertex”, “the graph is homogeneous, each execution of the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm generates a row-source, executing the nested loops join node further comprises executing the suffix pattern-matching portion, and executing the suffix pattern-matching portion reads from the row-source for path and destination information”, “wherein the unbounded regular path graph query is a shortest path query and wherein the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm is a breadth first search (BFS) algorithm”, “wherein the BFS algorithm performs batch expand by expanding more than one vertex in each query”, “wherein the unbounded regular path graph query is a cheapest path query and wherein the recursive graph pattern-matching algorithm is a Dijkstra algorithm”.
In a BRI, said steps can be performed using human mental evaluation and judgment with the use of pen and paper and mathematical concepts including calculation, formulas or equations and pattern matching fundamentally relies on abstraction, and fall into the abstract idea of mental processes, similar to the independent claims. The dependent claims 17-20 recite limitations of commensurate scope with claims 2-12. For the reasons stated above, dependent claims 17-20 also recite mental processes and mathematical calculations which are abstract ideas. Thus, the claims 1-20, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with usage of pen and paper and fall within the "Mental Processes" and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fan et al. (US 2180330008) teaches at para. 10-11: wherein the query is a regular path query (RPQ), and updating the results of the query includes: receiving a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) describing the query; para. 15: wherein the change to the graph is localizable when the query is a key word search (KWS), pattern matching via subgraph isomorphism (ISO), or combinations thereof.
Korn et al. (US 20060053122) teaches at para. 68-69: prefix paths, index nested loop joins, suffix matches; para. 72: the data paths index is a regular B+ tree index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH BLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-4106. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/LINH BLACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2163 7/12/2026
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights