DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/011499 filed on 6 January 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 incorrectly refer to their parent claims as method claims. For example, claim 11 recites “The method of claim 10, wherein…” (emphasis added), whereas claim 10 is a system claim. Reference in each of these claims to a parent claim that is method claim appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 20 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 10, the following is recited (emphasis added): “evaluating each possible property key for each vertex according to a specified probability.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each possible property key” in this claim.
As to claims 11-20, they depend from claim 10 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
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 claim 1, this claim recites defining an islands schema specifying archipelago structures, wherein each archipelago structure comprises a root vertex type and zero or more additional vertex types. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed “archipelago structures” encompasses two simple data structures each having just a few vertices and just one vertex type, i.e. the root vertex type. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a trivial case, a human could mentally perform the claimed defining of an “islands schema” with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize such a trivial schema to represent these trivial data structures. Furthermore, with the aid of pencil and paper, a human could write out the claimed “islands schema.” 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.
This claim also recites “generating a plurality of disconnected archipelagos in parallel according to the islands schema, wherein each archipelago is generated by recursively creating vertices and edges according to probabilistic parameters specified in the islands schema.” The BRI of this limitation encompasses a trivial case of just two probabilistic parameters. Given that the BRI encompasses such a trivial case, as set forht above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed generating. For example, a human could visualize the archipelagos and draw them out on a piece of paper. Furthermore, the plain meaning of “parallel” is “an arrangement or state that permits several operations or tasks to be performed simultaneously rather than consecutively1.” A human can perform generating the claimed archipelagos in parallel by working on drawing out the archipelagos simultaneously (as opposed to fully completing one and then moving onto another). Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes.”
This claim also recites “stitching the disconnected archipelagos together by creating additional edges between vertices of different archipelagos according to joining rules specified in the islands schema.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human can mentally perform the claimed stitching, especially with the aid of pencil and paper. This merely requires the human to draw lines (claimed “edges”) between vertices of different archipelagos, as claimed. As a guide on how to go about this, the human could refer to joining rules written down in the island schema. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “a computer.”
Limitation (a) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional element (a) 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 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. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-7, these claims merely provide more details of the claimed generating of archipelagos, probabilistic parameters, stitching the archipelagos together, and islands schema. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to claim 8, this claim recites “define a schema specifying vertex types, edge types, and property constraints.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this limitation encompasses just two vertex types, just two edge types, and just two property constraints. Given that the BRI of the claim encompasses such a trivial case, a human could mentally perform the claimed defining of a schema with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize such a trivial schema and, with the aid of pencil and paper, a human could write out the claimed schema. 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.
This claim also recites “generate multiple disconnected subgraphs in parallel according to the schema, wherein each subgraph is generated using probabilistic traversal from a root vertex.” Given that the BRI encompasses such a trivial case, as set forht above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed generating. For example, a human could visualize the subgraphs and draw them out on a piece of paper. Furthermore, the plain meaning of “parallel” is “an arrangement or state that permits several operations or tasks to be performed simultaneously rather than consecutively2.” A human can perform generating the claimed subgraphs in parallel by working on drawing out the subgraphs simultaneously (as opposed to fully completing one and then moving onto another). Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes.”
This claim also recites “join the disconnected subgraphs by creating edges between vertices of different subgraphs according to probabilistic parameters.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human can mentally perform the claimed joining, especially with the aid of pencil and paper. This merely requires the human to draw lines (claimed “edges”) between vertices of different subgraphs, as claimed. The human could refer to probabilistic parameters when joining the subgraphs. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “a processor;” and
b) “a memory storing instructions.”
Limitations (a) and (b) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (a) and (b) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 9, this claim recites validation of property values against constraitns specified in the schema. The claimed validation amounts to no more than a series of evaluations or judgements, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, especially for the trivial case encompasses by the BRI of the claims. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 10, this claim recites “wherein generating the subgraphs comprises: evaluating each possible property key for each vertex according to a specified probability; and calling a configured value generator to create a value when a property key is selected.” The claimed evaluating and value creation/generation can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, especially for the trivial case encompasses by the BRI of the claims. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 11, this claim recites “wherein the islands schema is specified in YAML format.” This amounts to an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Hence, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claim 12, this claim recites “wherein each edge type specifies: whether it is created during initial archipelago generation or during the stitching phase.” A human could define a schema that specifies edge types in the manner claimed, e.g. by writing it out on a piece of paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 13, this claim recites “wherein joining the subgraphs comprises: implementing a probabilistic zip function that pairs vertices from different subgraphs and determines whether to create edges between them.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed pairing of vertices and determination of edge creation. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 14, this claim recites “further comprising: transforming nested lists of return values into sequential streams per archipelago during parallel generation.” This amounts to nothing more than a simple data transofrmation, which a human can mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper, especially for the trivial case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 15, this claim recites maintaining a count of generated edges of each type. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed maintaing of counts. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 16, this claim recites “wherein creating streams of vertices comprises: reading previously materialized vertices of specified types in a deterministic order.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed reading. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 17, this claim recites “wherein the schema specifies: different root vertex types for different types of subgraphs within the same generated graph.” A human could define a schema that specifies root vertex types in the manner claimed, e.g. by writing it out on a piece of paper. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 18, this claim recites “wherein the value generators comprise: configuration parameters specifying constraints on generated values including maximum string lengths and allowed character sets.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally specify constraints in the manner claimed. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 19, this claim recites “wherein the instructions further cause the system to: generate property values for joining edges according to constraints specified in the schema.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate property values in the manner claimed. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 20, this claim recites “wherein generating the archipelagos comprises: implementing a generator function that maps values in a numeric range to generated archipelagos.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally map values in the manner claimed. Hence, this claim is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180315229 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim) in view of Marvasti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130097125 A1, hereinafter referred to as Marvasti).
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a method of generating synthetic graph data, comprising:
operating a computer to define an islands schema specifying archipelago structures, wherein each archipelago structure comprises a root vertex type and zero or more additional vertex types (Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: schema defining graph node types, including source node type);
generating a plurality of archipelagos in parallel according to the islands schema (Kim para. 0187: generating graph based on the schema; and see Kim para. 0043, 0165, and 0192: graph generation is done in parallel), wherein each archipelago is generated by recursively creating vertices and edges (Kim para. 0206-0207: recursively generating vertices and edges) according to probabilistic parameters specified in the islands schema (Kim para. 0210 and 0213: generating graph based on probability parameters; and see Kim para. 0173-0174: schema-driven graph generation defines parameters); and
stitching the disconnected archipelagos together by creating additional edges between vertices of different archipelagos (Kim para. 0163 and 0207: generating new edges) according to joining rules (Kim para. 0213 and 0217-0218: predefined conditions and stop conditions) specified in the islands schema (see Kim para. 0173-0174: schema-driven graph generation).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose generating a plurality of disconnected archipelagos.
However, Marvasti teaches:
operating a computer to define an islands schema specifying archipelago structures, wherein each archipelago structure comprises a root vertex type and zero or more additional vertex types (Marvasti para. 0003: schema defining data types, data relationships, and data organization);
generating a plurality of disconnected archipelagos (Marvasti para. 0068 and Fig. 17: generation of a plurality of mutually unconnected graphs) according to the islands schema (Marvasti para. 0003: schema defining data types, data relationships, and data organization).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include the teachings of Marvasti because it results in simpler, more tractable, and more informative graphs (Marvasti para. 0068).
As to claim 2, Kim as modified by Marvasti teaches wherein generating each archipelago comprises: creating a root vertex of the specified root vertex type (Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: source node type); assigning property values to the root vertex according to value generators specified in the islands schema (Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: schema defining in-/out-degree distributions); and recursively generating connected vertices and edges according to edge type definitions in the islands schema (Kim para. 0206-0207: recursively generating vertices and edges; and see Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: schema defining graph node types, edge predicates, and in-/out-degree distributions).
As to claim 3, Kim as modified by Marvasti teaches wherein the probabilistic parameters comprise: a likelihood value between 0.0 and 1.0 (Kim para. 0125: probability parameters for generation of each edge are from 0.0 to 1.0) for each possible edge type (see Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: schema defining edge predicates); and a number of chances to create each possible edge type (see Kim para. 0121-0123: size of a scope determines number of successes for edge generation).
As to claim 8, Kim teaches a system for synthetic graph generation, comprising:
a processor; a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Kim Fig. 17: processor 1702 coupled to memory 1703), cause the system to:
define a schema specifying vertex types, edge types, and property constraints (Kim para. 0187 and Fig. 7A: schema defining graph node types, edge predicates, and in-/out-degree distributions; Note: Kim’s “edge predicates” correspond to the claimed “edge types” and Kim’s “in-/out-degree distributions” correspond to the claimed “property constraints”);
generate multiple subgraphs in parallel according to the schema (Kim para. 0187: generating graph based on the schema; and see Kim para. 0043, 0165, and 0192: graph generation is done in parallel), wherein each subgraph is generated using probabilistic traversal (Kim para. 0210 and 0213: generating graph based on probability parameters) from a root vertex (Kim para. 0187: generating graph starting from source node/vertex); and
join the disconnected subgraphs by creating edges between vertices of different subgraphs (Kim para. 0163 and 0207: generating new edges) according to probabilistic parameters (Kim para. 0210 and 0213: generating graph based on probability parameters).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose generate multiple disconnected subgraphs.
However, Marvasti teaches:
define a schema specifying vertex types, edge types, and property constraints (Marvasti para. 0003: schema defining data types, data relationships, and data organization);
generate multiple disconnected subgraphs (Marvasti para. 0068 and Fig. 17: generation of a plurality of mutually unconnected graphs) according to the schema (Marvasti para. 0003: schema defining data types, data relationships, and data organization), wherein each subgraph is generated using probabilistic traversal from a root vertex (Marvasti para. 0074 and Fig. 24: probabilistic traversal from a root vertex).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include the teachings of Marvasti because it results in simpler, more tractable, and more informative graphs (Marvasti para. 0068).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Marvasti as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bhatti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180232402 A1, hereinafter referred to as Bhatti).
As to claim 9, Kim as modified by Marvasti does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: validate property values generated for vertices and edges against constraints specified in the schema.
However, Bhatti teaches wherein the instructions further cause the system to: validate property values generated for vertices and edges against constraints specified in the schema (Bhatti abstract and para. 0005: validating graph nodes and edges according to criteria specified in a schema).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim as modified by Marvasti to include the teachings of Bhatti because it makes it easier to validate graph data, resulting in a consistent structure that aids in program design (see Bhatti para. 0017).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Umar Mian/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 “Parallel.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parallel. Accessed 7 Nov. 2025.
2 “Parallel.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parallel. Accessed 7 Nov. 2025.