DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
2/3/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 3-5, and 8-20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows. IDS filed 5/12/2026 and 6/4/2026 have been considered.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 12-13 that “the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind as each element is specifically performed by particular applications that can evaluate data structures representing identity graphs to determine whether the identity graphs collapse based on an interaction record and modify edges of the identity graphs to resolve the identity graphs into non-collapsed states, thereby performing computer-based operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite the alleged “particular applications.” The claim language merely says, “computer implemented” (Example Claim 1). Under the broadest reasonable scope of the claim, a person using a pen and paper could perform the draw two graphs or two edges, erase , and redraw as needed for updating.
Applicant argues on p. 13 that “the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to computing technology through the efficient use of computing resources, such as computer processing, memory, and network communication bandwidth, to automate the evaluation of data structures representing identity graphs to determine whether the identity graphs collapse based on an interaction record and modify edges of the identity graphs to resolve the identity graphs into non-collapsed states (See Specification at 15-21, 37).”Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any technical mechanism to produce an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The specification’s efficiency claims are framed as reducing manual computer operations performed by a user, rather than a technical explanation of how the claimed limitations increase a computer’s efficiency.
Applicant argues on p. 13-14 that “the claims as a whole recites a combination of elements that provide an inventive concept as the combination of elements in the claims operate "in a non-conventional and non-generic way" to automate the evaluation of data structures representing identity graphs to determine whether the identity graphs collapse based on an interaction record and modify edges of the identity graphs to resolve the identity graphs into non-collapsed states, for example by "[(a)] determining, based on applying an identity node and an edge associated with an incoming record to a plurality of identity graphs, a collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs, each identity graph of the plurality of identity graphs corresponding to a data structure mapping relationships between identities of a particular individual; [(b)] determining, based on pruning a plurality of edges of the collapsed state that are incident to the identity node associated with the incoming record, a temporary state of the plurality of identity graphs; [(c)] determining, based on applying the edge associated with the incoming record to the temporary state from the plurality of edges pruned from the collapsed state, a non-collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs comprising the edge; [(d)] determining, based on applying a different edge of the plurality of edges pruned from the collapsed state to the temporary state comprising the edge and resulting in the collapsed state, to permanently prune the different edge from the non-collapsed state; and [(e)] causing updating of a corresponding identity graph of the plurality of identity graphs based on the non-collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs.”Examiner respectfully disagrees. An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. Applicant’s quoted claim language are the very elements that make up the judicial exception, excluding the additional elements highlighted in Step 2A, Prong Two, which does not identify something beyond the judicial exception.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejections.
In particular, see Applicant’s Remarks on p. 14-19.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, non-transitory computer readable media). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-7 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 8-14 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable media”). Claims 15-20 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting determining, based on applying an identity node and an edge associated with an incoming record to a plurality of identity graphs, a collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs, each identity graph of the plurality of identity graphs corresponding to a data structure mapping relationships between identities of a particular individual; determining, based on pruning a plurality of edges of the collapsed state that are incident to the identity node associated with the incoming record, a temporary state of the plurality of identity graphs; determining, based on applying the edge associated with the incoming record to the temporary state from the plurality of edges pruned from the collapsed state, a non-collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs comprising the edge; determining, based on applying a different edge from the plurality of edges pruned from the collapsed state to the temporary state comprising the edge and resulting in the collapsed state, to permanently prune the different edge from the non-collapsed state; and causing updating of a corresponding identity graph of the plurality of identity graphs based on the non-collapsed state of the plurality of identity graphs (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions including business relations and managing relationships. The claims recite steps to resolve identities by applying nodes, pruning edges, and determining collapsed, temporary, and non-collapsed states to then update an identity graph/profile. Applicant’s disclosure does not recite a particular problem the claimed steps aim to solve, however, it is understood that the claimed steps aim to map relationships between different identities of an individual to build a comprehensive profile of the individual with up to date information (Applicant’s Specification, [0012]-[0019]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions including business relations and managing relationships common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a method of evaluating edges of collapsed identity graphs for identity resolution).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as one or more computer-readable media having a plurality of executable instructions embodied thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method; a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “determining” a collapsed state, “determining” a temporary state, “determining” a non-collapsed state, “determining” to prune an edge, and “causing updating” of an identity graph (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8626835 B1: Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for social identity clustering. In one aspect, a method includes receiving a connection graph representing public social data, where the nodes represent social identities and each edge is either a “me” edge between identities claimed to belong to the same person or a “friend” edge between identities claimed to belong to different identities. The method further includes converting the graph to a cluster graph in which each node initially corresponds to a single node of the connection graph. The method further includes updating the cluster graph by iteratively merging cluster nodes based on an analysis of the weight of the “me” edges connecting them, and then replacing the merged cluster nodes within the graph with a new cluster node containing the merged cluster nodes, where the edges of the new cluster node are the aggregated edges of the merged cluster nodes.
WO 2018/226255 A1: The disclosed embodiments provide a system for processing queries of a graph database. During operation, the system executes a set of processes for processing queries of a graph database storing a graph, wherein the graph comprises a set of nodes, edges between pairs of nodes, and a set of predicates. Next, the system obtains a first query containing a first tuple and a second query containing a first subset of edges. The system transforms the first tuple into a second subset of edges and the first subset of edges into a second tuple. Finally, the system uses the second subset of edges to generate a first result of the first query and the second tuple to generate a second result of the second query, and provides the first result in a first response to the first query and the second result in a second response to the second query.
Moustafa et al., Subgraph pattern matching over uncertain graphs with identity linkage uncertainty, 2014: There is a growing need for methods that can represent and query uncertain graphs. These uncertain graphs are often the result of an information extraction and integration system that attempts to extract an entity graph or a knowledge graph from multiple unstructured sources [25], [7]. Such an integration typically leads to identity uncertainty, as different data sources may use different references to the same underlying real-world entities. Integration usually also introduces additional uncertainty on node attributes and edge existence. In this paper, we propose the notion of a probabilistic entity graph (PEG), a formal model that uniformly and systematically addresses these three types of uncertainty. A PEG is a probabilistic graph model that defines a distribution over possible graphs at the entity level. We introduce a general framework for constructing a PEG given uncertain data at the reference level and develop efficient algorithms to answer subgraph pattern matching queries in this setting. Our algorithms are based on two novel ideas: context-aware path indexing and reduction by join-candidates, which drastically reduce the query search space. A comprehensive experimental evaluation shows that our approach outperforms baseline implementations by orders of magnitude.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights