DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on August 28, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on August 28, 2026, have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 1-20 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-3 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, the examiner disagrees.
Applicant argued that the claimed inventions “provide a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer and database system”. The examiner notes: per MPEP 2106.05(a), "It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).” Because the entire scope of the claimed invention can be all performed in the human mind, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is not limited to computer implementation. The high-level recitation of generic computer components constitutes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and the insignificant extra-solution activities do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitations introduced with the amendments are addressed with new rationale. Please refer to the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections as set forth below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance. Applicant is encouraged to correct all the issues set forth in this office action to advance the prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: “and a value … comprises a primary key identifier (ID) is obtained by …” contains a typo.
Claim 8, lines 7-8: “and a value … comprises a primary key identifier (ID) is obtained by …” contains a typo.
Claim 15, line 5: “and a value … comprises a primary key identifier (ID) is obtained by …” contains a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “… a primary key identifier (ID) is obtained by converting the primary key into a data structure …” in lines 4-5, 7-8, and 5-6, respectively. The underlined element has no support in the original disclosure. The specification as filed never states converting the primary key into “a data structure”. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
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.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-7), a machine (claims 8-14), and a manufacture (claims 15-20). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“maintaining, in a data dictionary, a key-value pair corresponding to a data record stored in ..., wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key of the data record, and a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key identifier (ID) is obtained by converting the primary key into ... that occupies less storage space than the primary key”. The “converting the primary key into …” is recited at a high level of generality that encompasses what can be practically performed in the human mind. The “key-value pair” is similar to the “map” recited in CyberSource. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B, “…, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process.” Because maintaining a list of mapping can be practically performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper, therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold: deleting the key-value pair”. Both determining that a deadline is approaching and deleting expiring data can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“obtaining a maintenance duration of the key-value pair maintained by the data dictionary” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated for reuse in the data dictionary to limit growth of primary key IDs in the data dictionary”. The element “for reuse in the data dictionary” recites the intended use of the list of IDs, and the element “to limit growth of primary key IDs in the data dictionary” recites the natural result of the reusing. Recited at a high level of generality, this limitation may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“a database” and “a data structure” (claims 1, 8, and 15), “at least one processor” (claims 8 and 15), and “a memory” (claim 8) may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering and post-solution activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“obtaining a maintenance duration of the key-value pair maintained by the data dictionary” is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)].
“writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated for reuse in the data dictionary to limit growth of primary key IDs in the data dictionary” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 each recite additional elements of “determining the maintenance duration of the key-value pair based on a difference between the latest use moment indicated by the timestamp and a current moment”. Similar to the independent claims above, this “determining …” can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
Dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “determining” in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 each recite additional elements of “in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment”. Similar to the independent claims above, this “determining …” can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process. The additional elements of “obtaining a new data record; retrieving the data dictionary to determine whether a second key-value pair corresponding to a primary key of the new data record exists” constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g). In Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional under 2106.05(d)(ii) as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 above.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 each recite additional elements that generally link the abstract idea to a technological area – a distributed graph database, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
