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 10 September 2025.
Claims 1-10 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10 September 2025:
a. Rejections of claims 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for encompassing software per se are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments. Note that these claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as detailed below.
b. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; and/or do recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Regarding the analysis at step 2A, Prong One, Applicant asserts the follolwing:
“The claims recite concrete data structures and processing steps that go well beyond an abstract idea. Each template must include an anchor node with identifying attributes and N descriptive nodes linked to the anchor node. Templates are linked together by storing relationship data between nodes of different templates. The system further parses and populates received data into these structured templates. These features define a specific technical architecture for graph databases that results in efficiency gains and structured data instantiation.”
Remarks, page 8, second full paragraph.
Regarding the analysis at step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant asserts the follolwing:
“The claims are not directed to an abstract idea “without significantly more.” Instead, they are integrated into a practical application. The templates and linking mechanism improve the functioning of graph databases by enabling efficient object instantiation without repetitive individual node/link access. The system reduces computational overhead and provides a structured approach to managing complex relationships in a graph database. The invention is applied in concrete use cases such as adding new products, linking them to bundles, or instantiating applications from reusable templates.”
Remarks, page 8, third full paragraph.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Applicant’s analysis at Step 2A, Prong One is improper because Applicant has failed to construe the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). 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). Instant claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a “graph database.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “database” is an organized collection of data1. Under the BRI, the claimed “graph database” encompasses something as simple as a graph data structure drawn out on a piece of paper. These claims also recite the following:
defining plural templates of the graph database, each of the plural templates corresponding to a respective object category in a process, wherein each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer.
The claims do not specify the number of templates or nodes to be defined other than using the plural form of the word (i.e. “templates” and “nodes”), which encompasses just two under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under the BRI, the claims encompass a trivial case of just two templates, each template having just one anchor node and just two linked nodes. In total, the trivial case encompassed by the BRI of the claims has just two templates, just two anchor nodes, and just four linked nodes (i.e. two for each of the two anchor nodes). Furthermore, the claimed defining of templates amounts to no more than a specification, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize a couple of templates and their corresponding nodes as claimed. A human could also draw out these templates and nodes on a piece of paper. 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. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human can mentally perform the claimed “selecting,” “linking,” and “populating,” as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Hence, the claimed “defining,” “selecting,” “linking,” and “populating” are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Applicant’s analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is also improper. Applicant’s assertion of a practical application based on the “The templates and linking mechanism” is improper because it entails asserting the abstract itself (i.e. claimed “defining,” “selecting,” “linking,” and “populating”) as the practical application. “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). As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims recite generic computer components (e.g. “computer,” “one or more processors,” etc.) recited at a high level of generality. These generic computer components amount to more than 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). For this reason, the asserted reduction of computational overhead (Applicant’s remarks, page 8, third full paragraph) is not a valid practical application and analogy to the Enfish ruling (Applicant’s remarks, page 8, last full paragraph) is also improper. Furthermore, the asserted “managing complex relationships” is not a valid practical application because the claims do not require any “complex relationships.” Rather, the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case that is mentally performable by a human with pencil and paper, as set forth above. In addition, the assertion of “concrete use cases” is not a valid practical application since none of the mentioned use cases are reflected in the claims. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an invenvive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 10, and 19 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
c. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Dinkel fails to teach or suggest the following limitation of claim 1: “each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer.” In support of this argument, Applicant points to Dinkel’s Fig. 6 and concludes “Dinkel’s system does not use an anchor node” (remarks, page 9, last paragraph). Applicant goes on to define an anchor node as a node that “represents the core identity an object, with other nodes attached for that object’s properties” (Ibid.) and summarily concludes “Dinkel treats templates in a more generic way” (Ibid.).
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Dinkel teaches a plurality of templates, each template being associated with corresponding categories for particular tasks (see Dinkel Fig. 8, digital asset templates 812, 814, and 816). Dinkel further teaches that each template is represented as an anchor node linked to N other nodes, as depicted Dinkel’s Fig. 6, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
831
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dinkel’s Fig. 6, reproduced above, clearly shows an anchor node for digital asset template 602. As shown in the figure, this anchor node defines properties 604 and 606, and these properties are described as including indentifying attributes such as name (see Dinkel para. 0030 and 0112). Dinkel’s Fig. 6 further shows that the anchor node 602 is linked to N other nodes; i.e. nodes 612, 614, and 616. These N other nodes 612-616 also define properties 604 and 606 (claimed “descriptive attributes”). Hence, Dinkel teaches claim 1’s “plural templates” as claimed.
On page 10 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Dinkel fails to teach or suggest the following limitation of claim 1: “linking, by the one or more processors, the first template of the plural templates to the second template of the plural templates by storing relationship data between a node of the first template and a node of the second template.” Applicant points to Dinkel’s Fig. 8 and asserts that “Dinkel does not teach linking at the template level but rather merely teaches linking data in a graph generally” (remarks, page 10, first full paragraph).
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Dinkel teaches a plurality of templates, each template being represented as a node in a graph, as depicted in Dinkel’s Fig. 8, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
898
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dinkel Fig. 8, reproduced above, clearly shows templates 812, 814, and 816 depicted as nodes in a graph. These template nodes 812-816 are linked to each other in the graph, making it clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) that the corresponding templates 812-816 are linked. A PHOSITA would instantly recognizes Dinkel’s Fig. 8 to be a depiction of template-to-template relationships; i.e. nodes of the graph 812-816 represent templates, and those templates are linked as depicted in the graph. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Dinkel does teach linking at the template level, and Dinkel teaches claim 1’s “linking” limitation as claimed.
On pages 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant attacks the motivation to modify Dinkel with the teachings of Breeden, alleging that the Office has failed to provide “proper motivation originating from the prior art” and instead relied upon improper hindsight reasoning.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Dinkel and Breeden both relate to data processing and data modeling (see Dinkel para. 0001 and 0028; and see Breeden col. 1 L37-40, col. 7 L52 to col. 8 L13, and col. 115 L 34 to col. 117 L18). Furthermore, both Dinkel and Breeden utilize templates to facilitate the data processing/modeling (see Dinkel para. 0028-0029; and see Breeden col. 168 L11 to col. 169 L13). Although Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating templates by parsing received data objects, Breeden teaches this (see Breeden col. 173 L31 to col. 174 L35: data intake by parsing input files into discrete data objects according to the corresponding templates). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel to include the teachings of Breeden because parsing incoming data as taught by Breeden allows for identifying timestamps, grouping data objects, generating summaries or indexes, etc. (see Breeden col. 32 L60 to col. 33 L5).
Claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are unpatentable over the prior art for the same reasons that claim 1 is unpatentable, as set forth above.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are unpatentable over the prior art for the same reasons that claims 1, 10, and 19 are unpatentable, as set forth above.
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 1-20 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, 10, and 19, these claims recite a “graph database.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “database” is an organized collection of data2. Under the BRI, the claimed “graph database” encompasses something as simple as a graph data structure drawn out on a piece of paper. In addition, these claims recite the following:
defining plural templates of the graph database, each of the plural templates corresponding to a respective object category in a process, wherein each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer.
The claims do not specify the number of templates or nodes to be defined other than using the plural form of the word (i.e. “templates” and “nodes”), which encompasses just two under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under the BRI, the claims encompass a trivial case of just two templates, each template having just one anchor node and just two linked nodes. In total, the trivial case encompassed by the BRI of the claims has just two templates, just two anchor nodes, and just four linked nodes (i.e. two for each of the two anchor nodes). Furthermore, the claimed defining of templates amounts to no more than a specification, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize a couple of templates and their corresponding nodes as claimed. A human could also draw out these templates and nodes on a piece of paper. 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.
The claims also recite the following:
selecting a first template of the plural templates to represent a first object corresponding to the object category of the first template and selecting a second template of the plural templates to represent a second object corresponding to the object category of the second template.
The claimed selecting amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement, i.e. evaluating/judging the templates to select first and second templates as claimed. A human can mentally perform the claimed selecting—i.e. evaluating/judging the templates to select first and second templates as claimed—with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
The claims also recite the following:
linking the first template of the plural templates to the second template of the plural templates by storing relationship data between a node of the first template and a node of the second template.
A human can mentally perform the claimed linking with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize the first and second templates as being linked based on a relationship between their nodes. A human could also draw out on a piece of paper such a link/relationship. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
The claims also recite the following:
populating the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object.
The BRI of the claimed “received data” encompasses a trivial dataset having just a few data records. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human could parse this trivial dataset and populate the first and second templates in the manner claimed, e.g. by writing down the parsed data in the appropriate locations on the piece of paper having the first and second templates. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) one or more processors; and
b) a memory storing instructions;
c) “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon computer executable instructions.”
Limitations (a) through (c) 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (a) through (c) 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 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 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, and 20, these claims merely describe particular types of data objects (claims 2, 11, and 20) or particular node attributes (claims 4, 9, 13, and 18) upon which to apply the invention. This amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 17, these claims recite anchor nodes (claims 3 and 12), certain types of relationships between templates (claims 5 and 14), selecting the first template by selecting a particular sub-template (claims 7 and 16), or displaying templates based on defined display configurations (claims 8 and 17). However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial 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 remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to dependent claims 6 and 15, these claims recite features for utilizing an application programming interface (API) to populate the database. These features are recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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).
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, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240118680 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dinkel) in view of Breeden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,238,048 B1, hereinafter referred to as Breeden).
As to claim 1, Dinkel teaches a computer implemented method for using templates to generate data in a graph database, the method comprising:
defining, by one or more processors (Dinkel para. 0004: invention embodied as a computer system comprising one or more processors), plural templates (Dinkel para. 0029: templates) of the graph database (Dinkel para. 0049-0050: graph database), each of the plural templates corresponding to a respective object category in a process (Dinkel Fig. 8: templates associated with corresponding categories for particular tasks), wherein each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template (Dinkel Fig. 6: node 602 defining properties 604-606; and see Dinkel para. 0030 and 0112: the properties include identifying properties such as name) and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer (Dinkel Fig. 6: N other nodes 612-616, each respectively defining properties);
selecting, by one or more processors, a first template of the plural templates to represent a first object corresponding to the object category of the first template and selecting a second template of the plural templates to represent a second object corresponding to the object category of the second template (Dinkel para. 0031 and Fig. 8: templates are assigned to categories);
linking, by one or more processors, the first template of the plural templates to the second template of the plural templates by storing relationship data between a node of the first template and a node of the second template (Dinkel Fig. 8: template 812 is linked to template 814, and template 814 is linked to template 816).
Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating, by one or more processors, the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object.
However, Breeden teaches populating, by one or more processors, the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object (Breeden col. 173 L31 to col. 174 L35: data intake by parsing input files into discrete data objects according to the corresponding templates; and see Breeden Fig. 42: plurality of templates).
Dinkel and Breeden both relate to data processing and data modeling (see Dinkel para. 0001 and 0028; and see Breeden col. 1 L37-40, col. 7 L52 to col. 8 L13, and col. 115 L 34 to col. 117 L18). Furthermore, both Dinkel and Breeden utilize templates to facilitate the data processing/modeling (see Dinkel para. 0028-0029; and see Breeden col. 168 L11 to col. 169 L13). Although Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating templates by parsing received data objects, Breeden teaches this, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel to include the teachings of Breeden because parsing incoming data as taught by Breeden allows for identifying timestamps, grouping data objects, generating summaries or indexes, etc. (see Breeden col. 32 L60 to col. 33 L5).
As to claim 2, this claim merely describes certain data objects upon which to apply the invention, without any features that would limit the claimed technique. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an intended use of the claimed invention and it has no patentable weight. However, assuming arguendo that the claim has patentable weight, prior art is cited.
Dinkel as modified by Breeden teaches wherein the objects comprise at least one of: a product (Dinkel para. 0026: physical assets in an industrial environment, such as machines and equipment; and 0030), a product category, a product bundle, product marketing information, customer information, order information, and complementary product information.
As to claim 4, this claim merely describes certain data attributes upon which to apply the invention, without any features that would limit the claimed technique. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an intended use of the claimed invention and it has no patentable weight. However, assuming arguendo that the claim has patentable weight, prior art is cited.
Dinkel as modified by Breeden teaches wherein attributes of a node include at least one of: a name of the node (see Dinkel para. 0030 and 0112: the properties include identifying properties such as name), a description of the object the node represents, and identification of the node.
As to claim 5, this claim merely describes certain relationship data upon which to apply the invention, without any features that would limit the claimed technique. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an intended use of the claimed invention and it has no patentable weight. However, assuming arguendo that the claim has patentable weight, prior art is cited.
Dinkel as modified by Breeden teaches wherein the relationship data of the link between the first template and the second template comprises at least one of: the first object belongs to the second object, the first object includes the second object, the first object complements the second object (Dinkel para. 0119 and Fig. 8: templates complement each other to complete an asset category, e.g. the maintenance asset category), the first object is conducted by the second object, the first object is located in the second object, or the first object is assigned to the second object.
As to claim 6, Dinkel as modified by Breeden teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving an application programming interface (API) documentation and defining the plural templates based on the API document (Dinkel para. 0057-0058: application programming interface (API) for data pipeline, including defining templates); and using the API to populate the graph database (Dinkel para. 0051: application programming interface (API) to build knowledge graph).
As to claim 8, Dinkel as modified by Breeden teaches further comprising: defining a display configuration associated with each one of the plural templates, wherein the display configuration of a respective template defines display positions of attributes associated with nodes of the respective template; and displaying at least one of the first template and the second template according to corresponding display configurations (Dinkel para. 0079 and Fig. 10: rendering of visualization data associated with the templates).
As to claim 9, this claim merely describes certain details of the templates upon which to apply the invention, without any features that would limit the claimed technique. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an intended use of the claimed invention and it has no patentable weight. However, assuming arguendo that the claim has patentable weight, prior art is cited.
Dinkel as modified by Breeden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the attributes of the first template comprises plural data fields.
However, Dinkel teaches that properties (claimed attributes) of a template may include measurements such as temperature and/or pressure readings (Dinkel para. 0113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel as modified by Breeden to have properties (claimed attributes) comprising plural data fields because doing so would allow recording measurements in multiple different units (e.g. the temperature property/attribute has data fields for recording both Fahrenheit and Celsius readings), allowing the data to be relevant for different users from different countries (e.g. U.S. and Europe).
As to claim 10, Dinkel teaches a system for using templates to generate data in a graph database, comprising:
at least one processor (Dinkel para. 0144 and Fig. 13: CPU 1320) operatively coupled with a memory, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Dinkel para. 0144, 0147 and Fig. 13: memory 1130 and 1340 storing instructions for the processor), cause the at least one processor to:
define plural templates (Dinkel para. 0029: templates) of the graph database (Dinkel para. 0049-0050: graph database), each of the plural templates corresponding to a respective object category in a process (Dinkel Fig. 8: templates associated with corresponding categories for particular tasks), wherein each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template (Dinkel Fig. 6: node 602 defining properties 604-606; and see Dinkel para. 0030 and 0112: the properties include identifying properties such as name) and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer (Dinkel Fig. 6: N other nodes 612-616, each respectively defining properties);
select a first template of the plural templates to represent a first object corresponding to the object category of the first template and select a second template of the plural templates to represent a second object corresponding to the object category of the second template (Dinkel para. 0031 and Fig. 8: templates are assigned to categories);
link the first template of the plural templates to the second template of the plural templates by storing relationship data between a node of the first template and a node of the second template (Dinkel Fig. 8: template 812 is linked to template 814, and template 814 is linked to template 816).
Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populate the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object.
However, Breeden teaches populate the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object (Breeden col. 173 L31 to col. 174 L35: data intake by parsing input files into discrete data objects according to the corresponding templates; and see Breeden Fig. 42: plurality of templates).
Dinkel and Breeden both relate to data processing and data modeling (see Dinkel para. 0001 and 0028; and see Breeden col. 1 L37-40, col. 7 L52 to col. 8 L13, and col. 115 L 34 to col. 117 L18). Furthermore, both Dinkel and Breeden utilize templates to facilitate the data processing/modeling (see Dinkel para. 0028-0029; and see Breeden col. 168 L11 to col. 169 L13). Although Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating templates by parsing received data objects, Breeden teaches this, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel to include the teachings of Breeden because parsing incoming data as taught by Breeden allows for identifying timestamps, grouping data objects, generating summaries or indexes, etc. (see Breeden col. 32 L60 to col. 33 L5).
As to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
As to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 9 above.
As to claim 19, Dinkel teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon computer executable instructions (Dinkel para. 0147 and Fig. 13: computer-readable media storing computer implemented instructions) that when executed by at least one processor operatively coupled with a memory (Dinkel para. 0144, 0147, and Fig. 13: memory 1330 and 1340 storing instructions for processor 1320), cause the at least one processor to perform a method for using templates to generate data in a graph database, including instructions for:
defining plural templates (Dinkel para. 0029: templates) of the graph database (Dinkel para. 0049-0050: graph database), each of the plural templates corresponding to a respective object category in a process (Dinkel Fig. 8: templates associated with corresponding categories for particular tasks), wherein each of the plural templates including nodes comprising (i) an anchor node defining identifying attributes of an object in the object category of the respective template (Dinkel Fig. 6: node 602 defining properties 604-606; and see Dinkel para. 0030 and 0112: the properties include identifying properties such as name) and (ii) N other nodes linked to the anchor node and respectively defining descriptive attributes of the object in the object category of the respective template, N being a non-negative integer (Dinkel Fig. 6: N other nodes 612-616, each respectively defining properties);
selecting a first template of the plural templates to represent a first object corresponding to the object category of the first template and selecting a second template of the plural templates to represent a second object corresponding to the object category of the second template (Dinkel para. 0031 and Fig. 8: templates are assigned to categories);
linking the first template of the plural templates to the second template of the plural templates by storing relationship data between a node of the first template and a node of the second template (Dinkel Fig. 8: template 812 is linked to template 814, and template 814 is linked to template 816).
Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object.
However, Breeden teaches populating the first template and the second template by parsing received data of the first object and the second object (Breeden col. 173 L31 to col. 174 L35: data intake by parsing input files into discrete data objects according to the corresponding templates; and see Breeden Fig. 42: plurality of templates).
Dinkel and Breeden both relate to data processing and data modeling (see Dinkel para. 0001 and 0028; and see Breeden col. 1 L37-40, col. 7 L52 to col. 8 L13, and col. 115 L 34 to col. 117 L18). Furthermore, both Dinkel and Breeden utilize templates to facilitate the data processing/modeling (see Dinkel para. 0028-0029; and see Breeden col. 168 L11 to col. 169 L13). Although Dinkel does not appear to explicitly disclose populating templates by parsing received data objects, Breeden teaches this, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel to include the teachings of Breeden because parsing incoming data as taught by Breeden allows for identifying timestamps, grouping data objects, generating summaries or indexes, etc. (see Breeden col. 32 L60 to col. 33 L5).
As to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel and Breeden as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Caswell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,336,138 B1, hereinafter referred to as Caswell).
As to claim 3, this claim merely describes certain details of the templates upon which to apply the invention, without any features that would limit the claimed technique. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an intended use of the claimed invention and it has no patentable weight. However, assuming arguendo that the claim has patentable weight, prior art is cited.
Dinkel as modified by Breeden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plural templates comprises plural anchor nodes of different objects.
However, Caswell teaches wherein at least one of the plural templates comprises plural anchor nodes of different objects (Caswell col. 5 L45-62: template defines nodes of different objects).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel as modified by Breeden to include the teachings of Caswell because it allows the template to specify dependencies among the objects (Caswell col. 5 L45-62).
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkel and Breeden as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Maur et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050278645 A1, hereinafter referred to as Maur).
As to claim 7, Dinkel as modified by Breeden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first template comprises plural sub-templates, each of the sub-templates (i) defining a different configuration of one or more anchor nodes and other nodes or (ii) defining different attributes corresponding to each node, and the selecting the first template comprises selecting one of the sub-templates of the first template to represent the first object.
However, Maur teaches wherein the first template comprises plural sub-templates (Maur para. 0033-0034: template comprises sub-templates), each of the sub-templates (i) defining a different configuration of one or more anchor nodes and other nodes or (ii) defining different attributes corresponding to each node (Maur para. 0014 and 0033: sub-templates define different data fields), and the selecting the first template comprises selecting one of the sub-templates of the first template to represent the first object (Maur abstract and Fig. 6: selection of sub-templates).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dinkel as modified by Breeden to include the teachings of Maur because it “provides a building block for constructing hierarchically structured templates,” allowing creation of new, more complex templates (Maur para. 0033).
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
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/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Rouse, Margaret. “What is a database? A definition by Techopedia.” Published 12 January 2024 by Techopedia.com. Accessed 16 May 2024 from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/1185/database-db
Teaches that "A database (DB), in the most general sense, is an organized collection of data."
2 Rouse, Margaret. “What is a database? A definition by Techopedia.” Published 12 January 2024 by Techopedia.com. Accessed 16 May 2024 from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/1185/database-db
Teaches that "A database (DB), in the most general sense, is an organized collection of data."