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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/09/2024.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argues that the amended claims “do not describe an abstract mental process or mathematical concept, but instead set forth specific rules for constructing a directed, weighted graph based on metric relationships between object instances” (page 14, 5th paragraph).
Respectfully noted, the claim limitation (i) “instantiating a graph data structure…” - recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights; and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally forming a graph data structures representing the object nodes.
(ii) “generating directed edges between pair of related nodes…and assign as an original node the node having the lower metric value and as a termination node the node having higher metric value” - recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally creating the directed edge from lower value node to higher value node.
(iii) “assigning an edge weight…being computed using metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes” recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally assign the edge connected between two nodes by mentally calculated the edge value using the values of two connected node.
Applicant further argues “In addition to the graph-construction rules, amended claim 1 further recites that the computing system automatically performs one or more system-level operations based on identifying a node pointed to by other nodes in the directed graph. These operations include adjusting prioritization of resource allocation, adjusting prioritization of processing, generating a notification, or triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an argument” and “They are not mere displays of information or "extra-solution activity," but instead modify system behavior in response to the graph-derived identification. This constitutes "integration into a practical application" under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's 2019 Revised Guidance” (page 14-15).
Respectfully, it is noted that claim limitation is as follow: “(1) causing a graph to be rendered on a user interface based on the generated directed edge and the computed edge weights to visually represent the relative metric-based relationships between the object instances; or (2) executing code to automatically provide an identified node by identifying a node of the first plurality of nodes pointed to by one or more other nodes of the first plurality of nodes, and in response to the identifying, automatically, by the computing system, performing one or more of: and adjusting prioritization of resource allocation to the identified node; adjusting prioritization of processing using the identified node; generating a notification comprising the identifier of the identified node; or triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an argument;
Noted, (2) operations include adjusting prioritization of resource allocation, adjusting prioritization of processing, generating a notification, or triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an argument, that might not even occurred (optional condition) while (1) recites mere displays of information or “extra-solution activity”.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant argues that “neither Slinger nor Hayden discloses computing an edge weight using the metric values of both connected nodes, as amended claim 1 now recites. As just noted, Hayden describes weights based on network- or query-performance metrics of a data source, such as average response time, not the metric values corresponding to object instances represented by the nodes. The Office action does not identify any passage in Slinger or Hayden that teaches or suggests computing an edge weight from the two nodes' metric values.” (page 12, 3rd paragraph). Respectfully, it is noted that Hayden col. 5, line 9-33, teaches utilizing a directed graph representation of some or all of the data sources for the various resource classes of the network; each node may represent a data source, and each edge may represent logical relationship between the resource classes represented by the nodes connected by the edge; each edge of the graph may have a numerical weight associated with it, computed at least in part based on performance metric obtained from one or both of the data sources whose nodes are connected by the edge; for example, average response times of a certain type of query directed to a data source represented by a given node may be used to assign a weight to an edge connected that node; noted, computing the edge weight based on performance metrics obtained from both of data source nodes [interpreted as two nodes’ metric values] are connected by the edge, which reads on as claimed.
Applicant further argues that “Neither Slinger nor Hayden discloses or suggests assigning direction based on a comparison of the metric values associated with the represented object instances.” (page 12, 2nd paragraph) Respectfully, it is noted that newly added reference Chauhan discloses the limitations as further explained below. Therefore the cited references disclose the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because it does not fall within four category of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C 101 (Process, machine manufacture or composition of matter).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis
STEP 1:
Claims 1, 13 and 17 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG l (Claim 1):
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
receiving first metric values of a metric type … limitation (but for the computer system)- recites at a high level of generality, is a type of insignificant extra solution activity (under mere-data gathering, 2106.05(g), consulting and updating an activity log). Additionally, the computer-based systems are examples of generic computing elements.
instantiating a first instance of a graph data structure … limitation (but for the computer system) - recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights; and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally forming a graph data structures representing the object nodes.
“from the first metric values, including as part of the instantiating, generating directed edges between pairs of related nodes …and assign as an original node the node having the lower metric value and as a termination node the node having higher metric value” limitation - recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally creating the directed edge from lower value node to higher value node.
“for respective pairs of related nodes of the first instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight…being computed using metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes” limitation- recite the mathematical graph theory (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). Graph theory is a branch of mathematics, where a graph is made up of vertices (or nodes), connected by edges – where edges may be assigned numerical weights and/or mental process with an aid of pen and paper- for example, mentally assign the edge connected between two nodes by mentally calculated the edge value using the values of two connected nodes.
(1) causing a graph to be rendered ...; or (2) executing code to provide an identified node by identifying a node … limitation (but for the computer system) - merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples). Noted, that claim limitation is as follow: “(1) causing a graph to be rendered based on the generated directed edges and the computed edge weights to visually represent the relative metric-based relationships between the object instances; on a user interface that illustrates at least a portion of the nodes and edges of the instance of the graph node datatype, including showing directional relationships between the at least a portion of the nodes; or (2) executing code to automatically provide an identified node by identifying a node of the first plurality of nodes pointed to by one or more other nodes of the first plurality of nodes, and in response to the identifying, automatically, by the computing system, performing one or more of:
adjusting prioritization of resource allocation to the identified node;
adjusting prioritization of processing using the identified node;
generating a notification comprising the identifier of the identified node; or
triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an
argument”
Noted, the claim limitation indicates the optional condition occurs in the claim; (2) “operations include adjusting prioritization of resource allocation, adjusting prioritization of processing, generating a notification, or triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an argument” might not even occurred while (1) recites mere displays of information or “extra-solution activity”.
The additional limitations “at least one memory; one or more hardware processor; one or more computer readable storage media” describe generic computer components, akin to adding the word "apply it" in connection with the abstract idea.
STEP 2B (Claim 1):
Under step 2B, the limitations “receiving…” and “causing a graph to be rendered…” merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples) and is well-known, conventional, and routine in the art (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering); see MPEP 2106.05(d), IL; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage).
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 13 and 17 are being rejected under U.S.C. 101 for similar reason.
Claims 3-12, 15-16 and 18-19 are dependent on their respective parent claims 1, 13 and 17 respectively and include all the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 17. Since these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are direct to abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267032 A1) in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0005075 A1), further in view of Hayden (U.S. Patent No. 8,595,262 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Slinger teaches a computing system comprising: at least one memory; one or more hardware processor units coupled to the at least one memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving first metric values of a metric type for respective object instances of a first set of a first plurality of object instances of an object type (paragraph [0045], receives the performance metrics over time, e.g., in real time; received values (and value ranges) and associated units of measurement may vary widely, depending on whether, an underlying resource includes resources, memory resource, or network resources; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see Figs. 6);
instantiating a first instance of a graph data structure having a first plurality of instances of a graph node datatype, each instance of the graph node datatype representing a corresponding object instance of the first plurality of object instances and being associated with an identifier and a metric value corresponding to the corresponding object instance (paragraph [0070]-[0071], in Fig. 2, illustrated nodes 202, 204,206, 208, 210, each represent either a performance metric [interpreted as metric value corresponding to object instance] for one or more IT assets or resources of the technology landscape [interpreted as object instance] that may be scored by the score generator; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see Figs. 6, which illustrates object instance identifier, for example, element 612a represents object instance “Global Connection”, element “612c” represents object instance “Page Plock Activity”);
from the first metric values, including as part of the instantiating, generating directed edges between pairs of related nodes, and thus related corresponding object instances, using the first metric values of the nodes (paragraph [0070]-[0071], in Fig. 2, illustrated nodes 202, 204,206, 208, 210, each represent either a performance metric for one or more IT assets or resources of the technology landscape that may be scored by the score generator; in Fig. 2, edge 212 connects nodes 202 and 204, edge 214 connects nodes 204 and 206…; each edge represents a conditionally valid cause-and-effect directional relationship between each corresponding pair of nodes; conditions to be evaluated may be defined with respect to current scores, or combinations of scores, of the nodes connected by edge).
Slinger does not explicitly disclose: wherein generating the directed edges comprises, for each pair of related nodes, assigning as an origination node the node having a lower metric value and assigning as a termination node the node having a higher metric value.
Chauhan teaches: wherein generating the directed edges comprises, for each pair of related nodes, assigning as an origination node the node having a lower metric value and assigning as a termination node the node having a higher metric value (paragraph [0045], a graph is created based on tabular data; the graph can comprise a plurality of nodes-e.g., one node for each key-value pair of a table; an edge can formed between the nodes; the edge can a directed edge; the directed can be oriented from a node corresponding to a lower-value column of the table to a node corresponding to a higher-value column of the table; noted, “node corresponding to a higher-value” is interpreted as “an origination node the node having a lower metric value”; “node corresponding to a higher-value” is interpreted as “termination node the node having a higher metric value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein generating the directed edges comprises, for each pair of related nodes, assigning as an origination node the node having a lower metric value and assigning as a termination node the node having a higher metric value into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein generating the directed edges comprises, for each pair of related nodes, assigning as an origination node the node having a lower metric value and assigning as a termination node the node having a higher metric value that is computationally efficient and paints an accurate picture of tabular data (Chauhan, paragraph [0012], line 13-15).
Slinger as Hayden do not explicitly disclose: for respective pairs of related nodes of the first instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight to the edge connecting the nodes in the respective pair, the edge weight being computed using the metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes.
Hayden teaches: for respective pairs of related nodes of the first instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight to the edge connecting the nodes in the respective pair, the edge weight being computed using the metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes (col. 5, line 9-33, utilizing a directed graph representation of some or all of the data sources for the various resource classes of the network; each node may represent a data source, and each edge may represent logical relationship between the resource classes represented by the nodes connected by the edge; each edge of the graph may have a numerical weight associated with it, computed at least in part based on performance metric obtained from one or both of the data sources whose nodes are connected by the edge; for example, average response times of a certain type of query directed to a data source represented by a given node may be used to assign a weight to an edge connected that node; noted, computing the edge weight based on performance metrics obtained from both of data source nodes are connected by the edge, which reads on as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include for respective pairs of related nodes of the first instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight to the edge connecting the nodes in the respective pair, the edge weight being computed using the metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include for respective pairs of related nodes of the first instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight to the edge connecting the nodes in the respective pair, the edge weight being computed using the metric values corresponding to the two connected nodes to provide a simplified, unified approach to such resource identification problems may help enhance operational productivity (Hayden, col. 2, line 14-16).
Slinger as modified by Chauhan and Hayden further teach:
(1) causing a graph to be rendered on a user interface based on the generated directed edge and the computed edge weights to visually represent the relative metric-based relationships between the object instances; or (2) executing code to automatically provide an identified node by identifying a node of the first plurality of nodes pointed to by one or more other nodes of the first plurality of nodes, and in response to the identifying, automatically, by the computing system, performing one or more of: and adjusting prioritization of resource allocation to the identified node; adjusting prioritization of processing using the identified node; generating a notification comprising the identifier of the identified node; or triggering a computing process using the identifier of the identified node as an argument (Slinger, Figs 5-6, Figs. 6 illustrates a graph to be rendered on a user interface that comprising the nodes and edge; also see paragraph [0114], FIG. 6 illustrates an example event graph schema in a mainframe computing environment; selector 604 enables selection of information related to the various nodes of the event graph schema, while selector 606 enable selection information related to the relationships between each nodes).
As per claims 13 and 17, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267032 A1) in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0005075 A1) and Hayden (U.S. Patent No. 8,595,262 B1), further in view of ZHIQIANG et al. (CN 117609621).
Regarding claim 3, Slinger as modified by Chauhan and Hayden teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the assigning an edge weight uses a quotient of the metric values for nodes in a pair of nodes.
ZHIQIANG teaches: wherein the assigning an edge weight uses a quotient of the metric values for nodes in a pair of nodes (page 9, paragraph [8], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the assigning an edge weight uses a quotient of the metric values for nodes in a pair of nodes into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the assigning an edge weight uses a quotient of the metric values for nodes in a pair of nodes to address issue with difficulty for a consumer to find the data resource content that is of interest or needs to him from the massive data source information (ZHIQIANG, page 5, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and ZHIQIANG teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 3, further teach: wherein nodes of the plurality of nodes having a higher metric value in a given pair of the nodes are identified as high value nodes and nodes of the first plurality of nodes having a lower metric value in a given pair of nodes are identified as low value nodes, and the assigning the edge weight comprises normalizing the quotient using an aggregated value of metric value for low value nodes or an aggregated metric value of high value nodes (ZHIQIANG, page 9, paragraph [8]-[10], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes; a unique identifier vector in a first raw data matrix of a first node may be obtained; the first hash vector includes a plurality of a first hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the first original data matrix; a unique identifier vector in a second original data matrix of the second node may be obtained; the second hash vector includes a plurality of second hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the second original data matrix; also see page 10, paragraph [1]-[3] and [10], determining by the first node and second node, whether the first hash value is less than the second value…; also see page 12, paragraph [5]-[6], [10]-[12], in calculation the intersection ratio between two nodes based on the intersection size between two nodes, the directivity between two nodes may be considered; the intersection ratio from the ith node to the j node is calculated as: Pa =C/A).
Regarding claim 5, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and ZHIQIANG teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 3, further teach: wherein nodes of the plurality of nodes having a higher metric value in a given pair of the nodes are identified as high value nodes, and the assigning the edge weight comprises normalizing the quotient using an aggregated value of metric value of high value nodes (ZHIQIANG, page 9, paragraph [8]-[10], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes; a unique identifier vector in a first raw data matrix of a first node may be obtained; the first hash vector includes a plurality of a first hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the first original data matrix; a unique identifier vector in a second original data matrix of the second node may be obtained; the second hash vector includes a plurality of second hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the second original data matrix; also see page 10, paragraph [1]-[3] and [10], determining by the first node and second node, whether the first hash value is less than the second value…; also see page 12, paragraph [5]-[6], [10]-[12], in calculation the intersection ratio between two nodes based on the intersection size between two nodes, the directivity between two nodes may be considered; the intersection ratio from the ith node to the j node is calculated as: Pa =C/A).
Claims 6-9, 11, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267032 A1) in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0005075 A1) and Hayden (U.S. Patent No. 8,595,262 B1), further in view of Yong et al. (Publication Number: KR 2023-0069678 A).
Regarding claim 6, Slinger as modified by Chauhan and Hayden teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach: receiving second metric values for the metric type for respective object instances of a second set of a second plurality of object instances of the object type (Slinger, paragraph [0045], receives the performance metrics over time, e.g., in real time; received values (and value ranges) and associated units of measurement may vary widely, depending on whether, an underlying resource includes resources, memory resource, or network resources; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see Figs. 6);
instantiating a second instance of the graph data structure having a second plurality of instances of the graph node datatype, respective instances of the second plurality of instances of the graph node datatype holding an identifier and a metric value for a corresponding object instance of the second plurality of object instances (Slinger, paragraph [0070]-[0071], in Fig. 2, illustrated nodes 202, 204,206, 208, 210, each represent either a performance metric for one or more IT assets or resources of the technology landscape that may be scored by the score generator; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see Figs. 6), at least a portion of the second plurality of instances corresponding to object instances of the first plurality of object instances, but having a second metric value of the second metric values (Slinger, paragraph [0045], receives the performance metrics over time, e.g., in real time; received values (and value ranges) and associated units of measurement may vary widely, depending on whether, an underlying resource includes resources, memory resource, or network resources; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see paragraph [0046], all such values of performance metrics may vary over time, based on larger number of factors; for example, performance metrics may vary based on time of day, time of week, or time of year; noted, as performance metrics are varied based on time period, therefore, it implies “at least a portion of the second plurality of instances corresponding to object instances of the first plurality of object instances, but having a second metric value of the second metric values”);
from the second metric values, including as part of the instantiating, generating directed edges between pairs of related nodes, and thus related corresponding object instances, using the second metric values of the nodes; for respective pairs of related nodes of the second instance of the graph node datatype, assigning an edge weight to the edge connecting the nodes in the respective pair, the edge weight being the metric value for a node in the respective pair or a value generated using the metric value for the node in the respective pair (Hayden, col. 5, line 9-33, utilizing a directed graph representation of some or all of the data sources for the various resource classes of the network; each node may represent a data source, and each edge may represent logical relationship between the resource classes represented by the nodes connected by the edge; each edge of the graph may have a numerical weight associated with it, computed at least in part based on performance metric obtained from one or both of the data sources whose nodes are connected by the edge; for example, average response times of a certain type of query directed to a data source represented by a given node may be used to assign a weight to an edge connected that node) but do not explicitly disclose generating a difference graph by computing a difference in edge weights of the first graph instance and corresponding edge weights of second graph instance.
Yong teaches: generating a difference graph by computing a difference in edge weights of the first graph instance and corresponding edge weights of second graph instance (page 9, paragraph [2]-[3], determines whether the weight (wuv) of each of the plurality of edges (wuv) in the bipartite graph (G) generated by the bipartite graph acquisition unit 210 is greater than a predetermined reference weight (w0 ) or It is determined whether or not it is small, and each of a plurality of edges is coded. Here, the criterion weight (w0 ) is a reference value of the evaluation score set to distinguish the user 's preference or non-preference for an item. Assume that it is set However, the criterion weight (w0) may be set in various ways according to the evaluation method of the user's item and the method of assigning evaluation points. That is, the reference weight (w0) may be set to an average value of evaluation scores for a plurality of items of a plurality of users or another predetermined statistical value. The sign graph acquisition unit 220 subtracts the reference weight (w0) from the weight (wuv) assigned to each of the plurality of edges of the edge group (E) in the bipartite graph (G). = wuv - w0). And, if the sign of the subtraction weight (wsuv) is positive (wsuv > 0), that is, if (wuv) is greater than the reference weight (w0), a positive sign (+) is assigned to the corresponding edge to make it a positive edge. On the other hand, if the sign of the subtraction weight (wsuv) is negative (wsuv < 0), that is, if the weight (wuv) is smaller than the reference weight (w0), a negative sign (-) is assigned to the corresponding edge; also see page 6, last paragraph, a bipartite graph composed of a plurality of edges connecting a user node and an item node in which scores are weighted by weights, the plurality of edges are divided into positive edges and negative edges according to the weights, and the positive graph having the positive edges and the above a graph generating unit generating a negative graph having negative edges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include generating a difference graph by computing a difference in edge weights of the first graph instance and corresponding edge weights of second graph instance into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include generating a difference graph by computing a difference in edge weights of the first graph instance and corresponding edge weights of second graph instance to provide a recommendation apparatus and method capable of accurately recommending an item suitable for a user in consideration of preferences and non-preferences according to positive and negative evaluation (Yong, page 6, 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and Yong teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach: generating a graph that only comprises edges between nodes that have a positive difference (Yong, page 6, last paragraph, teaches a bipartite graph composed of a plurality of edges connecting a user node and an item node in which scores are weighted by weights, the plurality of edges are divided into positive edges and negative edges according to the weights, and the positive graph having the positive edges and the above a graph generating unit generating a negative graph having negative edges).
Regarding claim 8, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and Yong teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach: generating a graph that only comprises edges between nodes that have a negative difference (page 6, last paragraph, teaches a bipartite graph composed of a plurality of edges connecting a user node and an item node in which scores are weighted by weights, the plurality of edges are divided into positive edges and negative edges according to the weights, and the positive graph having the positive edges and the above a graph generating unit generating a negative graph having negative edges) .
Regarding claim 9, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and Yong teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach: wherein the first metric values are metric values at a first point in time and the second metric values are metric values at a second point in time (Slinger, paragraph [0045], receives the performance metrics over time, e.g., in real time; received values (and value ranges) and associated units of measurement may vary widely, depending on whether, an underlying resource includes resources, memory resource, or network resources; also see paragraph [0042], the performance metrics may thus represent any corresponding type(s) of data is captured and reported, particularly in an ongoing, dynamic fashion; also see paragraph [0046], all such values of performance metrics may vary over time, based on larger number of factors; for example, performance metrics may vary based on time of day, time of week, or time of year; noted, as performance metrics are varied based on time period, therefore, it implies wherein the first metric values are metric values at a first point in time and the second metric values are metric values at a second point in time).
Regarding claim 11, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and Yong teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach: generating graph centrality metrics for nodes in the difference graph using edge weight differences; or generating a stochastic process model for nodes in the difference graph using edge weight differences (Yong, page 6, last paragraph, teaches a bipartite graph composed of a plurality of edges connecting a user node and an item node in which scores are weighted by weights, the plurality of edges are divided into positive edges and negative edges according to the weights, and the positive graph having the positive edges and the above a graph generating unit generating a negative graph having negative edges).
As per claims 15-16, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 6-7 and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 18-19, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 6-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267032 A1) in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0005075 A1) and Hayden (U.S. Patent No. 8,595,262 B1), and Yong et al. (Publication Number: KR 2023-0069678 A), further in view of ZHIQIANG et al. (CN 117609621).
Regarding claim 10, Slinger as modified by Chauhan, Hayden and Yong teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, but do not explicitly disclose: generating a first adjacency matrix corresponding to the first instance of the graph data structure using the first metric values; generating a second adjacency matrix corresponding to the second instance of the graph data structure using the second metric values; and calculating a difference between the first adjacency matrix and the second adjacency matrix.
ZHIQIANG teaches: generating a first adjacency matrix corresponding to the first instance of the graph data structure using the first metric values (page 9, paragraph [8]-[10], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes; a unique identifier vector in a first raw data matrix of a first node may be obtained; the first hash vector includes a plurality of a first hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the first original data matrix);
generating a second adjacency matrix corresponding to the second instance of the graph data structure using the second metric values (page 9, paragraph [8]-[10], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes; a unique identifier vector in a first raw data matrix of a first node may be obtained; the second hash vector includes a plurality of second hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the second original data matrix);
and calculating a difference between the first adjacency matrix and the second adjacency matrix (page 9, paragraph [8]-[10], in the virtual data value network, each node represented as a vertex, and the ratio of the intersection between every two nodes is used as the weight of the edge between two nodes; a unique identifier vector in a first raw data matrix of a first node may be obtained; the first hash vector includes a plurality of a first hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the first original data matrix; a unique identifier vector in a second original data matrix of the second node may be obtained; the second hash vector includes a plurality of second hash values, each corresponding to a unique identifier in the second original data matrix; also see page 10, paragraph [1]-[3] and [10], determining by the first node and second node, whether the first hash value is less than the second value…; also see page 12, paragraph [5]-[6], [10]-[12], in calculation the intersection ratio between two nodes based on the intersection size between two nodes, the directivity between two nodes may be considered; the intersection ratio from the ith node to the j node is calculated as: Pa =C/A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include generating a first adjacency matrix corresponding to the first instance of the graph data structure using the first metric values; generating a second adjacency matrix corresponding to the second instance of the graph data structure using the second metric values; and calculating a difference between the first adjacency matrix and the second adjacency matrix into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include generating a first adjacency matrix corresponding to the first instance of the graph data structure using the first metric values; generating a second adjacency matrix corresponding to the second instance of the graph data structure using the second metric values; and calculating a difference between the first adjacency matrix and the second adjacency matrix to address issue with difficulty for a consumer to find the data resource content that is of interest or needs to him from the massive data source information (ZHIQIANG, page 5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0267032 A1) in view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0005075 A1) and Hayden (U.S. Patent No. 8,595,262 B1), further in view of Gao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0253930 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Slinger as modified by Chauhan and Hayden teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the object type represents a topic and the first metric values represent user intent scores for instances of the topic generated from user interaction with electronic content associated with a corresponding topic.
Gao teaches: wherein the object type represents a topic and the first metric values represent user intent scores for instances of the topic generated from user interaction with electronic content associated with a corresponding topic (paragraph [0017], the user 102 may interface with a computer 104 that enables the user to browse and search the internet 108 via the example server 106. While FIG. 1 illustrates one example, the user 102 may interact with the internet 108 in a myriad of ways that may include a mobile device, a smart phone, a laptop over a wireless network, or the like. At a high level, the server 106 may store, track, and/or analyze the actions of the user 102 or users over the internet 108 to quantify the intent of the user(s) to towards various categories. Further, while the proceeding discussion describes the server 106 as tracking the user's actions, this tracking may be achieved locally on the computer 104, at another entity, or at any combination thereof. In some instances, the server 106 may group a number of users together based on their intent scores associated with a category; noted, “category” is equivalent to/interpreted as “topic”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the object type represents a topic and the first metric values represent user intent scores for instances of the topic generated from user interaction with electronic content associated with a corresponding topic into directed graph of Slinger.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the object type represents a topic and the first metric values represent user intent scores for instances of the topic generated from user interaction with electronic content associated with a corresponding topic address issue with estimating user interest or intent regarding particular categories of products or services is difficult (Gao, paragraph [0001], line 20-21).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights