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 .
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 08/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/04/2026 complies with the provisions of M.P.E.P 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality:
The claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least one query scaling technique comprises at least one of predicate restriction, sorted index retrieval, and Monte Carlo selection”, should be replace as “wherein the at least one query scaling technique comprises at least one of predicate restriction, sorted index retrieval, or Monte Carlo selection”.
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 without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 17:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The limitation “generating…; determining…; and determining…” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating…; determining…; and determining…”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“receiving…; rewriting …” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“delivering …; an output…; and an output…” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
“processor, memory and non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
“receiving …; and rewriting …”. This is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …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)".
“delivering …; an output…; and an output…”. This is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …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)”.
“processor, memory and non-transitory computer readable medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and the claims appear to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “calculating …” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“returning …” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claim 4 recites the limitation, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “determining a second differential insight for a second query at the graph query execution planner, the second query to be executed on the first data store” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“determining at the graph query execution planner that the second query is scalable by comparing the second differential insight of the second query to the differential insight threshold” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“rewriting…” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“delivering …” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claims 6-10, recite the limitations, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “calculating …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“returning …” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claim 12 recites the limitation, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “determining …”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“determining …” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“rewriting …” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“delivering…” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claims 14-18, recite the limitations, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites “calculating …” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“returning …” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claim 20 recites “determining …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“determining at the graph query execution planner that the second query is scalable by comparing the second differential insight of the second query to the differential insight threshold” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
“rewriting …” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“delivering …” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the limitations “determining at the graph query execution
planner that the first query is scalable by comparing the first differential insight to a differential insight threshold; rewriting the first query at the graph query execution planner according to at least one query scaling technique to adjust an amount of database reads required to execute the first query based at least in part on the comparison between the first differential insight and the differential insight threshold”.
- First, the underlined limitations. The claims provide no guidance based on what condition and how the limitations are identified/determined and performed/processed. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
- Second, there is no output result(s) of the claims. What happens after the first query rewritten to a graph query execution engine for execution on the first data store?
Applicant is required for clarification/correction the above issues.
- All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as their based claim as above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neun et al., (US 2022/0171820), hereinafter “Neun”, in view of Faltin et al., (US 2024/0273093), hereinafter “Faltin”, in view of Duan et al., (US 2012/0047114), hereinafter “Duan”, and further in view of Papaemmanouil et al., (US 2009/0192981), hereinafter “Papaemmanouil”.
Claim 1, Neun discloses a data processing system for dynamic scaling of graph queries for a graph data storage system, the data processing system comprising:
a processor (par. [0007], processor); and
a memory in communication with the processor (par. [0007], memory), the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors (par. [0007], at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs), cause the data processing system to perform operations of:
- receiving, at an execution planning component of a graph query execution planner, a graph query for requesting data from a graph data structure which abstracts data from a graph data storage system having a plurality of different data stores (par. [0006] and [0030], executing queries across multiple services and data sources using a Service Graph, an execution planner is configured to generate an execution strategy for the one or more data sources or the one or more location services, receive a query, identify which sources or services contain relevant data);
- generating an execution plan for executing the graph query across the different data stores of the graph data storage system, the execution plan including a first query to be performed on a first data store of the plurality of data stores (par. [0007], generate an execution strategy for searching the at least one location service or the at least one data source).
However, Neun fails to disclose the limitations “determining a first differential insight for the first query at the graph query execution planner, the first differential insight corresponding to a difference between an output of the first query when executed using a reduced number of database reads; determining at the graph query execution planner that the first query is scalable by comparing the first differential insight to a differential insight threshold”.
Meanwhile, Faltin discloses determining a first differential insight for the first query at the graph query execution planner (par. [0040], the first node determines, in a second instance of evaluating the graph query, that a next vertex to be evaluated is the particular vertex and that the stage of evaluation of the graph query at the particular vertex in the second instance is the same stage of evaluation at the particular graph vertex as in the first instance);
- determining at the graph query execution planner that the first query is scalable by comparing the first differential insight to a differential insight threshold (par. [0039]-[0040] and [0074], a first node evaluates a first portion of a graph query against vertices stored on the first node in a particular instance of evaluating the graph query, wherein the first node determines that a next vertex to be evaluated is a particular vertex on a second node and determine whether the size of the merged message is greater than a threshold size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Neun to rewrite the first query at the graph query execution planner according to at least one query scaling technique, in order to reduce the size of messages that are stored and sent across nodes in the multi-node system, thereby ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.
Neither Neun nor Faltin discloses the limitations “rewriting the first …threshold; and delivering the rewritten first query to a graph query execution engine for execution on the first data store”.
On the other hand, Duan discloses rewriting the first query at the graph query execution planner according to at least one query scaling technique to adjust an amount of database reads required to execute the first query based at least in part on the comparison between the first differential insight and the differential insight threshold (par. [0004] and [0037], receiving a user graph query; rewriting the user graph query as a new query based on a query policy expressed in a graph query language); and
- delivering the rewritten first query to a graph query execution engine for execution on the first data store (par. [0004] and [0037], performing the new query on graph data to obtain a result).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the combined system of Neun and Faltin to rewrite the first query at the graph query execution planner according to at least one query scaling technique, in order to find plans for execution that would optimize the query, thereby leading to faster results and less consumption of resources.
the combination of Neun, Faltin and Duan discloses the invention as claimed, except for the limitation “the first differential insight corresponding to a difference between (i) an output of the first query when executed using a reduced number of database reads and (ii) an output of the first query when executed using all required database reads”.
On the other hand, Papaemmanouil discloses the first differential insight corresponding to a difference between (i) an output of the first query when executed using a reduced number of database reads and (ii) an output of the first query when executed using all required database reads (par. [0047]-[0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate, and determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the combined system of Neun, Faltin and Duan to measure a query latency for executing the first query, in order to identify candidates for performance optimizations and allows you to see whether your optimization strategies are having the desired effect.
Claim 2, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Papaemmanouil discloses measuring a query latency for executing the first query (par. [0047]-[0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate, and determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).and
- comparing the measured query latency to an expected query latency for the first query to identify when the query latency does not comply with a target Quality of Service (QoS) (par. [0047]-[0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate, and determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).
- measuring a query latency for executing the first query (par. [0047], determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred); and
- comparing the measured query latency to an expected query latency for the first query to identify when the query latency does not comply with a target Quality of Service (QoS) (par. [0047]-[0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate, and determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).
Claim 3, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Papaemmanouil discloses calculating a scaling factor for the first data store based on the measured query latency, the expected query latency, and the first differential insight for the first query (par. [0047], determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).
Neun discloses returning the scaling factor for the first data store to the graph query execution planner (par. [0006] and [0030], executing queries across multiple services and data sources using a Service Graph, an execution planner is configured to generate an execution strategy for the one or more data sources or the one or more location services, receive a query, identify which sources or services contain relevant data).
Claim 4, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Papaemmanouil discloses the scaling factor is calculated by multiplying a difference between the measured query latency and the expected query latency by the first differential insight and a predetermined scaling range (par. [0047]-[0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate, and determine whether a QoS metric constraint violation occurred. For example, a QoS metric, such as latency, is compared to a threshold, which is the constraint. If the threshold is exceeded, then a QoS violation occurred).
Claim 5, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Faltin discloses determining a second differential insight for a second query at the graph query execution planner, the second query to be executed on the first data store (par. [0040], the first node determines, in a second instance of evaluating the graph query, that a next vertex to be evaluated is the particular vertex and that the stage of evaluation of the graph query at the particular vertex in the second instance is the same stage of evaluation at the particular graph vertex as in the first instance);
- determining at the graph query execution planner that the second query is scalable by comparing the second differential insight of the second query to the differential insight threshold (par. [0039]-[0040] and [0074], a first node evaluates a first portion of a graph query against vertices stored on the first node in a particular instance of evaluating the graph query, wherein the first node determines that a next vertex to be evaluated is a particular vertex on a second node and determine whether the size of the merged message is greater than a threshold size).
Duan discloses rewriting the second query at the graph query execution planner according to at least one query scaling technique and with reference to the scaling factor to adjust an amount of database reads required to execute the second query based at least in part on the comparison between the second differential insight and the differential insight threshold (par. [0004] and [0037], receiving a user graph query; rewriting the user graph query as a new query based on a query policy expressed in a graph query language); and
delivering the rewritten second query to the graph query execution engine for execution on the first data store (par. [0004] and [0037], performing the new query on graph data to obtain a result).
Claim 6, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Faltin discloses the first query is rewritten to reduce the amount of database reads required to execute the first query without causing the differential insight of the first query to increase above the differential insight threshold (par. [0039]-[0040] and [0074], a first node evaluates a first portion of a graph query against vertices stored on the first node in a particular instance of evaluating the graph query, wherein the first node determines that a next vertex to be evaluated is a particular vertex on a second node and determine whether the size of the merged message is greater than a threshold size).
Claim 7, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Papaemmanouil discloses the first query is configured to determine the first differential insight, the query latency, and the scaling factor (par. [0048], receives the latency of all queries sharing its local operators, and it quantifies their "slack" from their QoS expectations, i.e., the increase of latency each query can tolerate).
Claim 8, the combination of Neun, Faltin, Duan and Papaemmanouil discloses the invention. In addition, Neun discloses the first differential insight corresponds to a difference in query output between an output of the first query when all relevant data records are considered and an output of the first query when a single one of the relevant data records is altered (par. [0006] and [0030], executing queries across multiple services and data sources using a Service Graph, an execution planner is configured to generate an execution strategy for the one or more data sources or the one or more location services, receive a query, identify which sources or services contain relevant data).
As to claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 are method claims and recite similar limitations as the system of claims 1-2 and 6-8 above. They are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 10-15, claims 10-15 are method claims and recite similar limitations as the system of claims 2-5 and 7 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 18-20, claims 18-20 are non-transitory computer readable medium, having stored therein instructions for executing the system of claims 2-5 and 7 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 17-20, are non-transitory computer readable medium claims, which recite similar limitations as the system of claims 1-3 and 5. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. 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.
09/28/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
