DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted May 20, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a 35 USC 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 towards a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea
The Applicant states “that at least the above features cannot be practicably performed in the human mind at least because the human mind, even if aided with e.g. pen and paper, cannot practicably perform "machine translation" on an initial search query to generate a graph search query, cannot execute the graph search query against the graph data repository, cannot apply mapping logic to the result set of nodes to obtain data objects stored in the non-graph data repository, and cannot provide the one or more data objects to a device associated with the user account.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Machine translation seems to be a generic data transformation. A person can translate data from one format to another either in their mind or with help of pen and paper. As to using a particular transformation to search a query, a person, for example, can write a SQL query, which would transform a particular query.
Mapping logic is interpreted as at least how nodes relate to particular objects. A person can identify how particular nodes map to particular objects.
As to “provide the one or more data objects to a device associated with the user account,” that seems to be a generic data retrieval operation, which is considered extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims are Directed to a Practical Application
The Applicant states that additional elements recited that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are “generating a graph search query configured for the graph data repository by performing machine translation on the initial search query; executing the graph search query against the graph data repository to generate a result set of nodes, wherein the executing includes selectively including in the result set of nodes only nodes that (i) correspond to most recent versions of the one or more data objects and (ii) are accessible to the user under one or more applicable ACLs, applying mapping logic to the result set of nodes to obtain the one or more data objects stored in the non-graph data repository.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Generating a graph query is something that a person can do in their mind or with help of pen and paper. As to machine translation of a query, A person can translate data from one format to another either in their mind or with help of pen and paper. As to using a particular transformation to search a query, a person, for example, can write a SQL query, which would transform a particular query.
As to searching a graph and its nodes, that is something that a person can do in their mind or with help of pen and paper. As to restricting which nodes or which version of a node a person can search, that is also something that a person can do in their mind or with help of pen and paper.
As to the mapping logic, it is interpreted as at least how nodes relate to particular objects. A person can identify how particular nodes map to particular objects.
Therefore, the above recited elements and implied improvements just restate the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The Claims Recite Significantly More Than An Abstract Idea
The Applicant states that “amended claim 1 recites additional elements in addition to those alleged to set forth the abstract idea such that the claim recites an inventive concept that is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The above recited elements and implied improvements just restate the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-9 and 11-19 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 11 state “storing one or more data objects in a non-graph data repository as one or more nodes and edges of a graph in a graph data repository.” However, it is unclear how objects are stored in a non-graph repository are then stored into “a graph data repository.” The instant specification at [0052] states that “At step 255, the process also transforms the first dataset to cause storing metadata of the first dataset in a graph of a graph data repository” (emphasis added). That means that objects from a non-graph repository have to first be transformed to be stored in a graph repository. However, the claims do not recite such a step. As such, it is unclear the functionality that the Applicant is trying to perform in the above limitation.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 12-19 do not remedy the above issue.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Claims recite abstract subject matter directed towards storing and searching items in a graph.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 11 recite:
storing one or more data objects in a non-graph data repository as one or more nodes and edges of a graph in a graph data repository, wherein the graph stores access control list (ACL) information of a first data object into an ACL node and transforming a version of a second data object into a version node – Storing data is extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g). Transforming a node from one type of node to another node is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
electronically receiving an initial search query, in a query language of the non-graph data repository, for data included in the non-graph data repository, associated with a user account - Receiving a request for information is extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating a graph search query configured for the graph data repository by performing machine translation on the initial search query – Transforming a query from one format to another is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
executing the graph search query against the graph data repository to generate a result set of nodes, wherein the executing includes selectively including in the result set of nodes only nodes that (i) correspond to most recent versions of the one or more data objects and (ii) are accessible to the user under one or more applicable ACLs - Retrieving data based on particular conditions is extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g).
applying mapping logic to the result set of nodes to obtain the one or more data objects stored in the non-graph data repository – Identifying how particular nodes map to particular objects is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
providing the one or more data objects to a device associated with the user account - Retrieving data based on particular conditions is extra-solution activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors - Using a processor is an additional hardware element.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware such as a processor, memory, etc executing the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 12-19 further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,719,557, Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,275,783, Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,409 and Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,176. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above listed patents anticipate the instant claims.
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 1-6, 9, 11-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0144062) in view of Akkiraju et al (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0203327) further in view of Rosenberg et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0302113) and further in view of Kramer et al (US Patent 9,348,880).
Claims 1 and 11: Jan discloses a method and a system of managing digital entities in data repositories, comprising:
storing one or more data objects in a non-graph data repository as one or more
nodes and edges of a graph in a graph data repository, wherein the method is performed using one or more processors [0026]. [See storing data in a graph and at least transforming data into graph data.]
Jan alone does not explicitly disclose the rest of the limitations.
Akkiraju and Rosenberg disclose:
wherein the graph stores access control list (ACL) information of a first data object into an ACL node. and transforming a version of a second data object into a version node [Jan [0026] discloses transforming objects into nodes and Akkiraju [0039] also discloses setting ACL properties for nodes; Rosenberg [0085-0086] discloses setting nodes with particular versions and is able to “run any query on the current version…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan with Akkiraju and Rosenberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide graph search results to a user.
Kramer and Rosenberg disclose:
electronically receiving an initial search query, in a query language of the non-graph data repository, for data included in the non-graph data repository, associated with a user account [Akkiraju [0029] discloses at least receiving a query.]
generating a graph search query configured for the graph data repository by performing machine translation on the initial search query [Akkiraju [0029] discloses at least “transforming a user's query to express it in a graph database query language…”]
executing the graph search query against the graph data repository to generate a result set of nodes, wherein the executing includes selectively including in the result set of nodes only nodes that (i) correspond to most recent versions of the one or more data objects and (ii) are accessible to the user under one or more applicable ACLs [See at least Kramer (Fig. 6, Col 15 ln 41-67, Col 17 ln 58-67) disclosing a graph search result is transformed into a non-graph result and filtering results based at least on “access control identifiers.” And see at least Rosenberg [0085-0086] for setting nodes with particular versions and is able to “run any query on the current version…”]
applying mapping logic to the result set of nodes to obtain the one or more data objects stored in the non-graph data repository [See at least Kramer (Fig. 6, Col 15 ln 41-67, Col 17 ln 58-67) for mapping results between graph search result and non-graph data.]
providing the one or more data objects to a device associated with the user account [See at least Kramer (Fig. 6, Col 15 ln 41-67, Col 17 ln 58-67) for filtering results based at least on “access control identifiers.”]
Claims 2 and 12: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Rosenberg, for the same reasons as above, further discloses identifying a realm identifier indicating a first investigative context from the search query or another source, the executing of the graph search query against the graph data repository comprising filtering out from the result set any node that does not belong to the first investigate context or a second investigative context on which the first investigative context is based [0073]. [See at least filtering out nodes based on a particular identifier.]
Claims 3 and 13: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Rosenberg, for the same reasons as above, further discloses filtering from the result set any node that is not an ACL node or a version node [0073]. [See at least filtering out nodes based on a particular identifier. Filtering out particular nodes such as not ACL and version nodes, is an obvious variation of filtering out nodes based on an identifier. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rosenberg to modify particular nodes based on a user filtering criteria in order to retrieve user requested results.]
Claims 4 and 14: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Jan further discloses transforming a reference in the second data object, which links the second data object to a third data object in the non-graph data repository, into a link node in the graph data repository having a first edge that is connected to the version node and having a second edge that is connected to a second node representing a version of the third data object, in the graph data repository [0026, 0059]. [See at least nodes connected in a graph. As for specific types of nodes, also see Rosenberg [0073].]
Claims 5 and 15: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 4 and 14 above, and Jan further discloses inspecting a value of a property node linked to the version node [0026, 0059].
Claims 6 and 16: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 5 and 15 above, and Jan further discloses following from the version node the first edge to the link node and the second edge to a version node of the third data object [0026, 0059]. [See at least nodes connected in a graph. As for specific types of nodes, also see Rosenberg [0073].]
Claims 9 and 19: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Akkiraju, for the same reasons as above, further discloses receiving an ACL identifier from an external security system; adding the ACL identifier to the ACL node as a property [0036].
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0144062) in view of Akkiraju et al (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0203327) further in view of Rosenberg et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0302113) further in view of Kramer et al (US Patent 9,348,880) and further in view of Zhou (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0024586).
Claims 7 and 17: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, but Jan alone does not explicitly disclose concurrent to executing the graph search query against the graph data repository, executing the search query against the non-graph data repository; receiving, from the non-graph data repository, a second result set of data objects; merging the second result set of data objects into a result set of data objects generated from the result set of nodes obtained by applying the mapping logic, to form a combined search result set of data objects.
However, Akkiraju [0037] discloses searching a graph database and Zhou [0090] discloses searching different nodes in parallel and then combining individual search results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan with Akkiraju and Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide efficient query processing.
Claims 8 and 18: Jan as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, but Jan alone does not explicitly disclose storing object metadata for the one or more data objects in a native index of a non-graph database system including the non-graph data repository and in a secondary index in a graph database system including the graph data repository.
However, Zhou [0074-0075] discloses indexing non-graph data in a hash table and Akkiraju [0028] discloses indexing graph data in an index.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan with Akkiraju and Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide efficient query processing by at least using an index to access data faster.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 at 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
