DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 31 March 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 31 March 2026:
a. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 1-6 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; does recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or does recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Regarding the analysis at Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant points to the “receiving,” “identifying,” and “generating” limitations of claim 1 and summarily concludes that these limitations “cannot reasonably be construed as merely directed to mental processes” (remarks, page 3, first full paragraph). Applicant is advised that claims in a pending application must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP § 2111. Furthermore, with regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II). Applicant’s conclusory statement (i.e. that these claim limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind) is unpersuasive not only because it lacks any rationale or evidence but also because Applicant has failed to construe the claims under the BRI. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the BRI of claim 1 encompasses a simple case of a just a few graph nodes, edges, and process elements. A human can mentally visualize such a simple graph and mentally perform the claimed “identifying” and “generating” limitations. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the “receiving” limitation is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; for the reasons detailed below.
Regarding the analysis at Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B; Applicant asserts that the practical application and/or inventive concept is in the graph editing (i.e. claimed “identifying,” “translating,” and “executing” limitations) and the generating an animation (i.e. “generating” limitation)1. However, all of these limitations are mentally performable abstract idea limitations, as set forth above and as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements…In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” MPEP 2106.05(a), (emphasis added). Hence, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Applicant has asserted the abstract idea itself (i.e. the claimed “identifying,” “translating,” “executing,” and “generating”) as a practical application and/or inventive concept.
Claims 9 and 16 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 1 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 3-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 9, and 16 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 9, and 16, these claims recite a graph that comprises a data structure storing “data in a plurality of nodes, and relationships between the plurality of nodes in a plurality of edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of nodes is associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of process elements.” The claims do not place any limits or specifications upon the claimed graph, nodes, relationships, or process elements; other than using plural forms of the words (i.e. “nodes,” “relationships,” and “process elements”). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these limitations encompasses a simple graph having just a few nodes, relationships, and process elements. These claims recite “identifying a subset of the plurality of nodes that is associated with the portion of the graph; and identifying, based on the edit, an operation indicating a specific type of the edit to the
portion of the graph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally visualize such a simple graph, especially with the aid of pencil and paper. Furthermore, for such a simple graph, a human could mentally perform these two claimed “identifying” limitations, which amount to no more than judgements or evaluations. A human could mentally judge or evaluate the simple graph to identify a subset of nodes as claimed, and similarly, a human could mentally judge/evaluate the simple graph to identify an operation, as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “translating the operation into a command list comprising declarative commands useable by a diagramming tool using a second programming language different from the first programming language, wherein the declarative commands are indicative of the specific type of the edit.” The claims do not place any limits or specifications upon the claimed “command list.” Accordingly, the BRI of this limitation encompasses a simple command list having just a couple commands. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human can mentally perform the claimed translating, as claimed. For example, if the identified operation is to add a new node to the graph, a human could translate this into a command list that is as simple as the following: 1) add the new node to the graph, and 2) create one or more new edges in the graph to represent the relationship(s) of the new node to existing nodes in the graph. Since the claimed “translating,” when interpreted under the BRI, can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, it falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “executing the command list to generate an edited portion for the portion of the graph.” For the simple graph and simple command list encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally execute a command list in the manner claimed. Continuing with the example of a simple command list previously discussed, executing the simple command list would merely require the following: 1) drawing on a piece of paper the new node that is to be added to the graph, and 2) drawing on the piece of paper one or more edges to represent the relationship(s) of the new node to existing nodes in the graph. Hence, the “executing” limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite “generating an animation to visualize an implementation of the edit, wherein generating the animation comprises: changing a visualization of the edited portion of the graph including changing a color, a brightness, a shape, a movement, or any combination thereof.” For the simple graph and simple command list encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally visualize an animation of implementing the edit, including an animation that changes color, brightness, shape, or movement. Continuing with the example of a simple command list previously discussed, a human could mentally visualize the adding of the new node to the graph and the creation of one or more edges to represent the relationship(s) of the new node to existing nodes in the graph. A human could also visualize changes in color, shape, brightness, etc. For example, the human could mentally visualize old nodes displayed in one color while newly-added nodes are mentally visualized as displayed in another color. Similar mental visualizations could be achieved for changes in brightness, shape, or movement. Hence, the “generating an animation” limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receiving, via a network from a client device using a first programming language, an edit for a portion of a graph, wherein the graph is visually represented on the client device and comprises a data structure storing: data in a plurality of nodes, and relationships between the plurality of nodes in a plurality of edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of nodes is associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of process elements” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 9 and 16);
b) “one or more processors”;
c) “memory, including computer-executable instructions;” and
d) “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon
executable instructions.”
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (b) through (d) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed sending and receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, element (a) cannot be deemed an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (b) through (d) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 3-4, 7, 10, 11, and 17-19, these claims merely provide more details of the claimed “command list.” However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 5, this claim recites “wherein receiving the edit for the portion of the graph is based on a user interface.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As to dependent claims 6 and 14, these claims recite certain details of the claimed nodes or subset of nodes. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claim(s) goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claim(s) are also directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 8, 15, and 20, these claims recite storing the command list at a buffer queue on a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, claims 18 and 20 add the following: “to delay updating the graph until execution of one or more other command lists based on one or more other edits have been completed.” This amounts to an intended use that is not positively recited. Hence, these claims also remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to dependent claim 12, this claim recites “wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed by the one or more processors, cause the animation to be displayed on the client device to visualize completion of the edit.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As to dependent claim 21, this claim recites “wherein property data of a node of the subset of the plurality of nodes is used by a command of the command list, and the property data is fetched when executing the command.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent, a human could mentally perform this limitation with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize and draw out on a piece of paper a simple graph with a few nodes, each node having corresponding property data. When executing a command to edit a portion of the graph, a human could “fetch” (i.e. read) property data of a node and use it to execute the command. Hence, this claim is also directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 22, this claim recites “wherein the property data of the node comprises metadata of the node, and wherein the metadata comprises a type of the node or a type of activity represented by the node.” A human could mentally visualize and write out on a piece of paper property data that is as described in this claim, i.e. node type or activity type. As set forth above in the parent claim, when executing a command to edit a portion of the graph, a human could “fetch” (i.e. read) property data of a node and use it to execute the command. Hence, this claim is also directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 See Applicant’s remarks, pages 5-6
Prosecution Insights