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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 10 April 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10 April 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 9-11 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Applicant alleges that instant claim 1 is analogous to the claims in Enfish because splitting the tree graph in accordance with a user identifier (as in instant claim 1) “lowers write conflicts while maintaining efficient memory usage by implementing different graphs for active users” (remarks, pp. 9-10). In the Enfish ruling, the Court found the claims at issue to be “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, page 12, first full paragraph). The Court added that “Here, the claims are not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database” (Ibid., page 14, last paragraph, emphasis is the Court’s). In other words, the Enfish ruling was based on a conclusion that the specific data structure recited in the claims was unique to computer databases. In the instant case, claim 1’s “initial tree graph” and “new tree graph” are in no way unique to computers. To the contrary, graph data structures comprised of nodes and edges (a.k.a. “connections” or “linkages”) such as the ones recited in instant claim 1 have been the subject of theoretical study in mathematics for decades prior to the modern computer era1. Hence, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, instant claim 1 is not unique to the operation of computing systems and analogy to Enfish is improper. Instant claim 1 does not recite an improvement to computer technology but rather broadly recites generating and updating a data structure that has a history of extensive study and application outside of computer technology. For a similar reason, Applicant’s analogy of instant claim 1 to Example 3 provided by the Office in the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility is also improper. In Example 3, the claims related to digital image processing, a field that is unique to computer technology. In contrast, instant claim 1 recites generating and updating data structures (i.e. graph data structures) that humans have studied and analyzed for decades (and, in fact, even centuries) prior to the modern computing era2. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims recite generic computing components performing generic computing functions. “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. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 18 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 2-3, 5-9, and 12-17, and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 10, and 18 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 5-10, and 12-20 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 18, these claims recite a graph database comprising an initial tree graph (claims 1 and 10) and an initial Bw-tree graph (claim 18). These claims do not place any limits or specifications upon the tree graph or the Bw-tree graph. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this limitation encompasses a simple tree graph (or Bw-tree graph) having just a few nodes and edges. Furthermore, the BRI of a “database” is “an organized collection of information3.”
These claims recite “determine a splitting event to perform based on one or more predetermined criteria.” The claimed determining amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement, i.e. judgement of which particular splitting event should be performed. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed determining with the aid of pencil and 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.
These claims also recite “generate a new tree graph corresponding to a field identifier of the new data entry by splitting off a subset of the plurality of data entries of the initial tree graph, wherein the subset of the plurality of data entries comprises all data entries of the initial tree graph that correspond to the field identifier of the new data entry, and wherein the new tree graph stores the subset of the plurality of data entries by omitting the field identifiers of the keys of the subset of the plurality of data entries, and wherein read and write operations are independent across the initial tree graph and the new tree graph” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 10 and 18). Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed generating of a tree graph. For example, a human could mentally judge/evaluate the tree graph to determine the appropriate portion to split off, allowing the human to generate (e.g. draw out on a piece of paper) a new tree graph in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite “update the new tree graph in accordance with the query” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 10 and 18). Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed updating with the aid of pencil and paper. This would merely require using a pencil and paper to update/change the new tree graph in the manner claimed. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under “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) “store a graph database comprising an initial tree graph storing a plurality
of data entries, comprising keys with corresponding values, wherein each of the keys stores a field identifier with a corresponding media content identifier” (claim 1 and a similar limitation of claim 10);
b) “receive a query to update the graph database, wherein the query
comprises a request to add a new data entry” (claim 1 and a similar limitation of claim 18); and
c) “A computing system for implementing a graph database system, the computing system comprising: processing circuitry and memory storing instructions” (claim 1).
Limitations (a) and (b) amount 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). Limitation (c) is 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. Limitations (a) and (b) amount 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 and storing 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 element (c) amounts 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 claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to claim 2, this claim recites certain details of the claimed graph database. As set forth above in the parent claim, storing the graph database amounts to mere gathering, which is insignificant extra solution that cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving and storing 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). 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 claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to claim 3, this claim recites the field identifiers comprising user identifiers. This claim amounts to 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 claim 5, this claim recites certain details of the claimed predetermined criteria. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 6, this claim recites “wherein the field identifier comprises a user identifier.” This claim amounts to 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 claim 7, this claim recites “wherein the initial tree graph comprises data
entries with a number of different user identifiers, and wherein the threshold of the rate of received queries is above rates of queries of at least 80% of the number of
different user identifiers in the initial tree graph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. A human can determine a threshold rate of received queries is at least 80%, as claimed. Such a determination amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 8, this claim recites “wherein the initial tree graph comprises a B+ tree or a Bw-tree.” This claim amounts to 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 claim 9, this claim recites limitations for receiving a second query, determining a second splitting event, generating a second new tree graph, and updating the second new tree graph. These limitations are analogous to those recited in the parent claim, claim 1, and these limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons set forth above in the parent claim.
As to claim 12, this claim recites certain details of the claimed predetermined criteria. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 13, this claim recites “wherein the same user identifier corresponding to the subset of the plurality of data entities of the initial tree graph has a highest count of occurrences in the initial tree graph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human can mentally determine which user identifier has the highest count of occurrences in the initial tree graph. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 14, this claim recites certain details of the claimed predetermined criteria. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 15, this claim recites “wherein the plurality of data entries of the initial tree graph has a number of different user identifiers, and wherein the threshold of the rate of received queries is above rates of queries of at least 80% of the number of different user identifiers in the initial tree graph.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. A human can determine a threshold rate of received queries is above 80%, as claimed. Such a determination amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 16, this claim recites “wherein the initial tree graph comprises a B+ tree or a Bw-tree.” This claim amounts to 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 claim 17, this claim recites certain details of the claimed graph database. As set forth above in the parent claim, storing the graph database amounts to mere gathering, which is insignificant extra solution that cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving and storing 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). 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 claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to claim 19, this claim recites “wherein the information describing the action performed by the user comprises information indicating that the user performed a like-action on a video.” This claim amounts to 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 claim 20, this claim recites certain details of the claimed predetermined criteria. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in this claim goes beyond what a human could perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this claim is also 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 “graph theory, branch of mathematics concerned with networks of points connected by lines…The history of graph theory may be specifically traced to 1735, when the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler solved the Königsberg bridge problem.”
“graph theory.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Published 23 May 2025 by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Accessed 6 Jan 2026 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/graph-theory
“The study of graphs is known as graph theory, and was first systematically investigated by D. König in the 1930s.”
Weisstein, Eric W. "Graph." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. Accessed 6 Jan 2026 from https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Graph.html
2 Ibid.
3 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
Teaches on page 1 that a database is "an organized collection of information."
Prosecution Insights