Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are pending and rejected are rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
MPEP 2106.04(II) notes the claim should be considered "as a whole" when performing the analysis under Prong I of the Step 2A analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that when Claim 1 is viewed "as a whole", Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a process that generates and stores linked graph elements within a native graph database using machine-driven operations applied to different types of data sources - both structured and unstructured. These operations are not capable of practical performance in the human mind and are instead directed to building and updating a native graph data structure within a specialized database environment. The claim therefore recites a specific technological implementation for organizing and linking data from different data sets within a native graph database rather than simply "analyzing information."
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
The claimed method is directed to the abstract idea of organizing, analyzing, and presenting information based on relationships between data, which is a fundamental information-processing activity and a form of mental process that can be performed conceptually without the claimed computer implementation. In particular, identifying topics in unstructured data, determining similarity between topics, matching data sets, linking related information, reducing duplicate linking operations, retrieving related information, and displaying selected data elements merely recite the collection, classification, correlation, and presentation of information. The recitation of a “native graph database,” nodes, edges, and a “graphical relationship map” does not integrate these abstract concepts into a patent-eligible practical application because the database is used merely as a conventional data-storage and retrieval mechanism for performing the same information-organizing operations. Likewise, the alleged improvement of “reducing duplicate linking operations” is stated only as a desired result of storing linked graph elements and does not identify a technological improvement to the operation of the database itself or a specific unconventional technique for achieving that result. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim amounts to nothing more than applying generic computer and database technology to the abstract concept of organizing and displaying relationships among data, and therefore fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception under Alice/Mayo step two.
Applicant Argues
However, Zhu fails to render obvious the features of Claim 1, because Zhu fails to describe or suggest, "generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes; reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database."
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 have been considered but are not persuasive. Here, Smith disclose generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and generating additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes, wherein the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges are stored as linked elements (paragraph[0035] and paragraph[0049]-paragraph[0051], the reference describes generating nodes and graphs and edges in a database (i.e., native graph database, as claimed).).
Next, Applicant argues “Zhu fails to render obvious the features of Claim 1, because Zhu fails to describe or suggest…reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database." The Examiner has considered the argument but the argument is moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 21-23 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method, comprising:
identifying, by a computer-based system, a topic for each unstructured data set of the plurality of unstructured data sets in a database;
matching at least two unstructured data sets among a plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets;
reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a computer-based system” and “a native graph database” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a computer-based system” and “a native graph database” amounts to mere generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a computer-based system, “identifying, by a computer-based system, a topic for each unstructured data set of the plurality of unstructured data sets in a database” encompasses mentally a person identifying a topic for each unstructured data set of the plurality of unstructured data sets in a database.
Next, “matching at least two unstructured data sets among a plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets;” encompasses mentally a person matching at least two unstructured data sets among a plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets.
Next, “reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;” encompasses mentally a person reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database. The mere nominal recitation of “a computer-based system” and “a native graph database” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping because they are generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation:
storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;
generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;
retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes
in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.
To begin, “the computer-based system” and “a native database” amounts to a mere generic computer component that do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere training a model cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes”, and “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” is merely displaying data. Gvelesiani U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458), paragraph[0034], indicate that mere display map relationship on an interface is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes”, and “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “linking the structured data set with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking the structured data set with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key. Next, the limitation “joining the structured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the structured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the linked data set further comprises an unstructured link set, the method further comprising: linking at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets with another one of the at least two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking at least one of the two unstructured data sets defining the entity type with the at least one of the two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship. Next, the limitation “joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “applying natural language processing (NLP) to each unstructured data” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “generating a topic set from at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating a topic set from at least one of the two unstructured data sets. Next, the limitation “generating the unstructured link set based on the topic set” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating the unstructured link set based on the topic set. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating a relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “further comprising extracting the plurality of unstructured data sets from a plurality of external information systems using at least one of a crawler, a log parser, a batch downloader, and an application programming interface.” of dependent claim 21 is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “further comprising storing the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets in a prework database prior to storing the nodes and edges in the native graph database.” of dependent claim 22 is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the nodes and the additional nodes are stored in the native graph database as graph nodes and the edges and the additional edges are stored in the native graph database as graph edges, wherein the graph nodes and the graph edges are stored as linked elements in the native graph database” of dependent claim 23 is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 23 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8, 9, and 11-14 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 8 recites a system performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 8 recites a system comprising:
identify a topic for each unstructured data set of a plurality of unstructured data sets in a database;
generate a linked data set based on an identification of similar topics in at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets;
reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a system”, “a native graph database”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “a graphical user interface” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a system”, “a native graph database”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “a graphical user interface” amounts to mere generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “identify a topic for each unstructured data set of the plurality of unstructured data sets in a database” encompasses mentally a person identify a topic for each unstructured data set of the plurality of unstructured data sets in a database.
Next, “generate a linked data set based on an identification of similar topics in at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets;” encompasses mentally a person generating a linked data set based on an identification of similar topics in at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets.
Next, “reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;” encompasses mentally a person reducing duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database.
The mere nominal recitation of “a system”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “a graphical user interface”, and “a native graph database” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping because they are generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites the additional limitation:
a processor that, when executing instructions stored in a memory, is configured to:
store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;
generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;
retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes; and
in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.
Here, “a processor that, when executing instructions stored in a memory, is configured to:” amounts to a mere generic computer component that do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 8 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere training a model cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;”, and “in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” is merely displaying data. Gvelesiani U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458), paragraph[0034], indicate that mere display map relationship on an interface is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;”, and “in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking the structured data set defining the entity type with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key. Next, the limitation “join the structured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the structured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the linked data set further comprises an unstructured link set, the method further comprising: link at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets defining the entity type with another one of the at least two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking at least one of the two unstructured data sets defining the entity type with the at least one of the two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship. Next, the limitation “join the unstructured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “apply natural language processing (NLP) to each unstructured data set” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “generate a topic set from at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating a topic set from at least one of the two unstructured data sets. Next, the limitation “generate an unstructured link set based on the topic set” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating the unstructured link set based on the topic set. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity type based on at least one of a structured link set, a hybrid link set, and an unstructured link set” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating a relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity type based on at least one of a structured link set, a hybrid link set, and an unstructured link set. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 15, 16, 18-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform:
identifying, by a computer-based system, a topic for each unstructured data set of a plurality of unstructured data sets in a database;
matching at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets;
reducing duplicate linking operation across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a computer-based system”, “a processor”, and “a graphical user interface”, and “a database” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a computer-based system”, “a processor”, “a graphical user interface”, and “a database” amounts to mere generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a computer-based system, “identifying, by a computer-based system, a topic for each unstructured data set of a plurality of unstructured data sets in a database;” encompasses mentally a person identifying a topic for each unstructured data set of a plurality of unstructured data sets in a database.
Next, but for the computer-based system, “matching at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets;” encompasses mentally a person matching at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets based on a similarity between topics of the at least two unstructured data sets.
Next, but for the computer-based system, “reducing duplicate linking operation across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;” encompasses mentally a person reducing duplicate linking operation across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database.
The mere nominal recitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a processor”, “a computer-based system”, “a graphical user interface”, and “a native graph database” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping because they are generic computer components that do not provide an inventive concept. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites the additional limitation:
storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;
generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;
retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes; and
in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the textual selection.
Here, “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the textual selection.” amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 15 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere training a model cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;”, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the textual selection.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the textual selection.” is merely displaying data. Gvelesiani U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458), paragraph[0034], indicate that mere display map relationship on an interface is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “storing, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;”, “generating, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;”, “retrieving, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes;”, “in response to receiving a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, displaying, by the computer-based system, data elements from the relationship map associated with the textual selection.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “linking the structured data set defining the entity type with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking the structured data set defining the entity type with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key. Next, the limitation “joining the structured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the structured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the linked data set further comprises an unstructured link set, the method further comprising: linking at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets with another one of the at least two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person linking at least one of the two unstructured data sets with the at least one of the two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship. Next, the limitation “joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “applying natural language processing (NLP) to each unstructured data set” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim amounts to mere insignificant instructions which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the limitation encompasses mentally a person generating a relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0301120; hereinafter: Zhu, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) in view of Smith et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0337262; hereinafter: Smith) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458; hereinafter: Gvelesiani, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) and further in view of Golze U.S. Patent Publication (2006/0005118; hereinafter: Golze)
Claims 1, 8, and 15
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Zhu discloses a system comprising:
a processor that, when executing instructions stored in a memory, is configured to (paragraph[0147], the reference describes a processor and memory.):
identify a topic for each unstructured data set of a plurality of unstructured data sets in a database (Figure 14, paragraph[0076], the reference describes using an NPL on unstructured data to create structured data (e.g., figure 14).);
Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose
generate a linked data set based on an identification similar topic in at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets;
store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity;
generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes;
reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes; and
in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.
However, Smith discloses generate a linked data set based on an identification similar topic in at least two unstructured data sets of the plurality of unstructured data sets (paragraph[0004], the reference describes linking similarity topics from unstructured data.);
store, in a native graph database, nodes corresponding to the at least two unstructured data sets and edges between the nodes based on the similarity (Figure 3, paragraph[0118]-paragraph[0120], the reference describes storing a graph nodes corresponding the entity relationships.);
generate, in the native graph database, additional nodes corresponding to a structured data set among a plurality of structured data sets and generating additional edges between the additional nodes and the nodes, wherein the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges are stored as linked elements (paragraph[0035] and paragraph[0049]-paragraph[0051], the reference describes generating nodes and graphs and edges in a database.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith to determine topic similarities between unstructured data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith to efficiently improve the computational linguistic analysis of a collection of documents (Smith: paragraph[0016]).
The combination of Zhu and Smith do not appear to explicitly disclose
reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes; and
in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection.
However, Gvelesiani discloses retrieve, from the native graph database, the nodes, the additional nodes, the edges, and the additional edges to generate a graphical relationship map comprising a plurality of displayable entity types corresponding to the nodes and the additional nodes(Figure 3B, paragraph[0012], the reference describes retrieving nodes and graphical relationship maps to display on an interface.); and
in response to a receipt of a selection of a displayable entity type of the plurality of displayable entity types, display data elements from the relationship map associated with the selection(paragraph[0034], the reference describes selecting icons representing a relationship map.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith and Gvelesiani to click on the users interface relationship map which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith and Gvelesiani to efficiently generate and display information about relationships between businesses entities (Gvelesiani: paragraph[0001]).
The combination of Zhu, Smith, and Gvelesiani do not appear to explicitly disclose reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database;
However, Golze discloses reduce duplicate linking operations across the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets based on storing the additional nodes and the additional edges as linked graph elements in the native graph database (paragraph[0037], the reference describes reducing data fragmentation and duplication of nodes.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze to reduce duplicate nodes which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze to efficiently store relationships based on the interest of the researcher (Golze: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose wherein the relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set (Figure 14, paragraph[0096], the reference describes selecting the icons on the interface.).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: link the structured data set with another structured data set to generate a structured link set, wherein the structured link set is based on a common key (Figure 14, paragraph[0054], the reference describes linking entities to another to displaying in an interface.); and join the structured link set to the relationship map (Figure 14, paragraph[0055], the reference describes linking additional entities into a map relationship.).
Claim 21
As to claim 21, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose extracting the plurality of unstructured data sets from a plurality of external information systems using at least one of a crawler, a log parser, a batch downloader, and an application programming interface (paragraph[0077], the reference describes using an application interface.).
Claim 23
As to claim 23, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Smith further disclose wherein the nodes and the additional nodes are stored in the native graph database as graph nodes and the edges and the additional edges are stored in the native graph database as graph edges, wherein the graph nodes and the graph edges are stored as linked elements in the native graph database (paragraph[0035], the reference describes graph edges and nodes are linked and stored in a database.).
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0301120; hereinafter: Zhu, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) in view of Smith et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0337262; hereinafter: Smith) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458; hereinafter: Gvelesiani, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) and further in view of Golze U.S. Patent Publication (2006/0005118; hereinafter: Golze) and further in view of Bornea et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2013/0332478; hereinafter: Bornea, in IDS dated April 25, 2024)
Claims 4, 11, and 18
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the linked data set further comprises an unstructured link set, the method further comprising:
linking at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets with another one of the at least two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship; and
joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map.
However, Bornea discloses wherein the linked data set further comprises an unstructured link set, the method further comprising:
linking at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets with another one of the at least two unstructured data sets to generate the unstructured link set, wherein the unstructured link set is based on a user entity relationship (paragraph[0009], the reference describes creating links between unstructured and structured data.); and
joining the unstructured link set to the relationship map (paragraph[0037], the reference describes linking the unstructured data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Bornea to obtain different user entities which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Bornea to efficiently provide query and integration of structured and unstructured data (Bornea: paragraph[0009]).
Claims 5, 12, and 19
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Bornea discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose wherein the using of the NPL comprises applying natural language processing (NLP) to each unstructured data set (paragraph[0006], the reference describes a natural language tool (i.e., algorithm, as claimed).).
Claims 6 and 13
As to claims 6 and 13, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Bornea discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose generate a topic set from at least one of the at least two unstructured data sets (Figure 14, paragraph[0052], the reference describes labels of the in entities in Figure 14.) and generate an unstructured link set based on the topic set (Figure 14, paragraph[0142], the reference describes showing a link on unstructured data on an interface.).
Claims 14 and 20
As to claims 14 and 20, the combination of Zhu, Markman, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Bornea discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Zhu further disclose wherein the relationship map includes a plurality of links between the plurality of displayable entity types based on at least one of a structured link set, the hybrid link set, or an unstructured link set (Figure 14, paragraph[0096], the reference describes selecting the icons on the interface.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0301120; hereinafter: Zhu, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) in view of Smith et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0337262; hereinafter: Smith) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2008/0270458; hereinafter: Gvelesiani, in IDS dated April 25, 2024) and further in view of Golze U.S. Patent Publication (2006/0005118; hereinafter: Golze) and further in view of Martin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2005/0120332; hereinafter: Martin, in IDS dated April 25, 2024).
Claim 22
As to claim 22, the combination of Zhu, Smith, Gvelesiani, and Golze discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising storing the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets in a prework database prior to storing the nodes and edges in the native graph database.
However, Martin discloses further comprising storing the plurality of structured data sets and the plurality of unstructured data sets in a prework database prior to storing the nodes and edges in the native graph database (paragraph[0083], the reference describes storing the data in a conversion storage unit (i.e., prework database, as claimed)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Martin to create storage of preformatted mapped data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Smith, Gvelesiani, Golze, and Martin to efficiently facilitate a business level analysis on an ongoing basis during the runtime of the software application (Martin: paragraph[0009]).
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights