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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) – (d).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment, filed January 4, 2026, has been fully considered and entered. Accordingly, Claims 1-5 are pending in this application. Claim 2 has been amended. Claims 1 and 4 are Independent Claims.
In view of Applicant’s Amendment, the objection to Claim 2 for minor informalities has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The ”index-generating component” and “comparison component” of Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites “an index-generating component” and “a comparison component” which are not described within the Specification as limited to hardware embodiments. This allows said “components” to embody software per se, which is not a “process”, a “machine”, a “manufacture” or a “composition.” Examiner suggests recitation limiting the claimed database and ingestion pipeline by reciting one or more processors.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 4, the claims recite the following method steps:
generating the index of the data being ingested by applying a deterministic function to the data’s attributes; and
ingesting the data if the index generated is unique to the database.
It is the position of the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited above are directed to an abstract mental process, as they recite the type of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion that can be performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional elements, such as the “comparison component” and the “index generating component” fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because they are generic components recited at a high level of generality and thus constitute “apply it” language (see MPEP 2105.05(f)(2)).
Regarding dependent Claims 2 and 5, the claims define the deterministic function described in Independent Claims 1 and 4, respectively, and are thus directed to the same abstract mental process cited above.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, the recited “graph database” fails to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because it is a generic component recited at a high level of generality and thus constitutes “apply it” language (see MPEP 2105.05(f)(2)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Camper (PG Pub. No. 2022/0156236 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Camper discloses a pipeline for data ingestion into a database, comprising:
an index-generating component based on a deterministic function (see Camper, paragraph [0017], where Fig. 3A illustrates hash keys generated and indexed for a permutations of combined record fields using deletion neighborhood applied at the field-level, according to certain example implementation of the disclosed technology); and
a comparison component adapted to determine if an index generated by said index-generating component already exists in said database (see Camper, paragraph [0008], where for each entity representation record, the method includes searching other entity representation records for matching combined record hash values indicating possible duplicate records).
Regarding Claim 2, Camper discloses the pipeline according to Claim 1, wherein the deterministic function is a hash function (see Camper, paragraph [0008], where for each entity representation record, the method includes searching other entity representation records for matching combined record hash values indicating possible duplicate records).
Regarding Claim 4, Camper discloses a method for ingesting data into a database, comprising:
generating the index of the data being ingested by applying a deterministic function to the data’s attributes (see Camper, paragraph [0017], where Fig. 3A illustrates hash keys generated and indexed for a permutations of combined record fields using deletion neighborhood applied at the field-level, according to certain example implementation of the disclosed technology; see also paragraph [0052], where a user may receive new data and may want to determine if any of the new data was already present in the database); and
ingesting the data if the index generated is unique in the database (see Camper, paragraph [0008], where for each entity representation record, the method includes searching other entity representation records for matching combined record hash values indicating possible duplicate records see also paragraph [0052], where a user may receive new data and may want to determine if any of the new data was already present in the database).
Regarding Claim 5, Camper discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the deterministic function is a hash function (see Camper, paragraph [0008], where for each entity representation record, the method includes searching other entity representation records for matching combined record hash values indicating possible duplicate records).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camper as applied to Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Wang (PG Pub. No. 2022/0269659 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Camper discloses the pipeline of Claim 1, wherein:
Camper does not disclose the database is a graph database. Wang discloses the database is a graph database (see Wang, paragraph [0004], where a method for deduplicating entity nodes in a graph database is provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Camper with Wang for the benefit of deduplicating entity nodes in a graph database (see Wang, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments, filed January 4, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 3 of Applicant’s Remarks that recitation of an “index-generating component” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While a claim limitation that does not use the terms “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply, the presumption is overcome if the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function (see MPEP 2181(I)). In this case, Applicant explicitly concedes the “component” encompasses software per se (see Applicant’s Remarks, page 3, paragraph 3, “A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these components as software and/or firmware modules” [emphasis added by Examiner]), which is not a structure. Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that the recited “component” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant further argues on page 4 of Applicant’s Remarks with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 101 that Independent Claim 1 does not encompass software per se. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Applicant has explicitly conceded that the claimed “index-generating component” encompasses software per se, which is not a “process”, a “machine”, a “manufacture”, or a “composition.” As the claim does not explicitly recite any other hardware components capable of performing the tasks of the “component”, it is the position of the Examiner that Claims 1-3 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant further argues on page 4 of Applicant’s Remarks that Claims 1-5 are not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Applicant explicitly concedes Independent Claim 1 encompasses software per se, as such Claims 1-3 fail the subject matter eligibility determination at Step 1. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, it is the position of the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of generating a hash-based index for a graph database and determining via comparison that said hash index already exists in the graph database for a claim that does not explicitly disclose hardware components encompasses an abstract mental process, as the method steps are capable of being performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B), where A Claim that Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process; see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), where claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699). With respect to step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, the additional elements, such as the “comparison component” and the “index generating component” fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or provide significantly more because they are generic components recited at a high level of generality and thus constitute “apply it” language (see MPEP 2105.05(f)(2), use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more). For at least these reasons, it is the position of the Examiner that Claims 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant further argues on page 5 of Applicant’s Remarks that Camper does not disclose all of the elements of Independent Claim 1 and equivalent Independent Claim 4. Specifically, Applicant argues that Camper only discloses hash-based duplicate detection and removal for files already in a database, rather than files being inserted into a database via ingestion pipeline. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Camper explicitly discloses data cleansing during ingestion (see Camper, paragraph [0050], where example implementations of the disclosed technology may utilize data profiling and data hygiene applications to support the data preparation process; for example, a data ingest application may allow input files to be combined or merged with an existing base file). For at least these reasons, it is the position of the Examiner that Camper discloses all of the elements of Independent Claims 1 and 4.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive at least in view of the reasons set forth above with respect to Independent Claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 FARHAD AGHARAHIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAD AGHARAHIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161