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 22 June 2026.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 13-17 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 22 June 2026:
a. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 7-14 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One and/or does recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. With regards to the anlaysis at Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant is advised of the following:
“Claims in a pending application must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111 citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01.
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).
“Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible,” MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Accordingly, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Applicant cites the instant specification, which describes an enterprise graph database that handles “vast datasets, complex relationships, and real-time querying” and “large schemas with complex node relationships and defined attributes having millions of nodes and edges” (remarks, page 10, citing para. 0004 of the instant specification). Applicant also cites the specification’s mention of the challenge of efficiently querying such a database (remarks, page 10, citing para. 0031 of the instant specification). Applicant then asserts that a human cannot mentally perform the claimed method on such a database (remarks, page 11). However, the claims do not recite any of the following: “vast” datasets, “complex” relationships, “real-time” querying, “large” schemas, “complex” node relationships, or defined attributes having millions of nodes and edges. Applicant has improperly imported these limitations into the claims. Under the BRI, a “database” is “an organized collection of information.1” The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “enterprise graph database.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “enterprise graph database” encompasses a simple graph database representing a simple graph having just a few nodes and edges. The subject matter eligibility analysis must proceed based on the BRI of the claim. See MPEP 2106(II), quoted above. Given that the BRI of the claim encompasses such a simple case, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed “identifying,” “translating,” “providing recommendations,” “dynamically generating,” “validating,” and “iteratively correcting;” as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Hence, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
With regards to the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two; Applicant characterizes the practical application as “a particular computer-implemented workflow for transforming a natural language query into a corrected cypher statement for an enterprise graph database, where the dynamic generation and self-healing correction operations improve the functioning of the computer system by reducing manual query-writing effort, reducing query failures, improving accuracy, increasing throughput, and enabling more efficient use of computational resources” (remarks, page 13). However, the “dynamically generating a cypher statement” and “iteratively correcting errors” limitations of claim 1 are mentally performable abstract idea limitations when the claim is interpreted under the BRI, as set forth above. “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).
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because Applicant has asserted the abstract idea itself (i.e. the claimed “dynamically generating a cypher statement” and “iteratively correcting errors”) as a practical application. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the additional elements of claim 1 represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, claim 1 fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 1 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1 and 9 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
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, 9, and 17, these claims recite “identifying a subgraph from the enterprise graph database that covers an intent of the user query.” The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “enterprise graph database.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “enterprise graph database” encompasses a simple graph database representing a simple graph having just a few nodes and edges. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally perform the claimed identifying of a subgraph with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize the claimed enterprise graph database, draw it out on a piece of paper, and mentally perform the evaluation/judgement necessary to identify a subgraph, as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “translating the natural language query by mapping the natural language query to corresponding nodes, attributes, and relationships in the subgraph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed translating with the aid of pencil and paper. This would merely require the human to consider what information is being asked about it in the natural language query and then map that requested information to corresponding nodes, attributes, and relationships in the subgraph. Given that that BRI of claims encompasses such a simple case, a human can mentally perform this translating/mapping with the aid of pencil and paper.
These claims also recite “providing recommendations to the user by generating values for the corresponding nodes, attributes, and relationships in the subgraph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed providing of recommendations with the aid of pencil and paper. This limitation amounts to mere judgements/evaluations, i.e. judging/evaluating which values are appropriate to recommend to the user. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, this can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper.
These claims also recite “dynamically generating a cypher statement based on a repository of template patterns covering various query types” and “iteratively correcting errors in the generated cypher statement to ensure correctness.” Read in light of Applicant’s disclosure, the claimed “cypher statement” is a query in a human readable format that resembles the industry-standard Structured Query Language (SQL)2, as in the following example:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Applicant’s Fig. 6, reference numeral 606. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally generate a cypher statement and correct its errors in the manner claimed, especially for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, these limitations are also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite validating the generated cypher statement by performing a multi-step validation pipeline comprising sequentially performing a syntax validation, an entity validation, and a schema validation, wherein the multi-step validation pipeline further comprises generating a syntax correction prompt responsive to a failed syntax validation, generating an entity correction prompt responsive to a failed entity validation, and generating a schema correction prompt responsive to a failed schema validation, and wherein the entity validation is performed responsive to passing the syntax validation and the schema validation is performed responsive to passing the entity validation. Notably, these claims recite performance of syntax validation, entity validation, and schema validation without reciting how such validation is to be performed/achieved. This is high-level, results-oriented language. Given that the claims encompass a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform these three validation steps in the manner claimed.
Looking at the generated cypher statement written out on a piece of paper, a human could mentally validate the syntax of the cypher statement and generate a syntax correction prompt in the manner claimed. Similarly, a human could, could with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform entity and schema validation and generation of the corresponding correction prompts, as claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receiving a natural language query from a user as a user query;”
b) a processor; and
c) one or more computer-readable storage media storing program instructions for a processor;
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (b) and (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 insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (b) and (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 insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18-20, these claims recite validating the generated cypher statement via multi-step validation pipleine including performing syntax, entity, and schema validation. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can validate the syntax, entities, and schemas mentioned in a simple cyper statement such such as the one depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 6, reference numeral 606. Hence, these claims recite an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 5 and 13, these claims recite enabling
multi-tum conversational interactions by supporting follow-up queries and continuously
refining the cypher statement based on user preferences. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can enable multi-turn conversational interactions in the manner claimed. Hence, these claims recite an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 6-8 and 14-16, these claims recite certain details of the recommendations provided to the user. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally generate recommendations to provide to the user in the manner claimed in these claims. Hence, these claims recite an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Gillis, Alexander S.; Lutkevich, Ben; and Hughes, Adam. "What is a database (DB)? Definition from TechTarget." Published May 2024 by TechTarget.com. Accessed 12 Feb 2025 from https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatamanagement/definition/database
2 https://foldoc.org/sql
