DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 06/23/2025. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected.
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 .
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12353351 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. US 12353351 B2 fully anticipates the limitation recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 of the Instant Application as shown below. The dependent claims are rejected for being dependent on rejected based claims.
Instant Application 19/249544
US 12353351 B2
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
accessing, using a processing unit, a first source chain datafile including data entries identifying linkages between a service provider, a service receiver, and a component provider of an enterprise, the first source chain datafile covering a first period of time;
translating, using the processing unit, the data entries into a production knowledge graph tuples according to a source chain knowledge graph schema;
storing, using the processing unit, the production knowledge graph tuples in a production knowledge graph;
ingesting a second source chain datafile covering a second period of time into the production knowledge graph, the second period of time occurring before the first period of time;
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the first source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the first source chain datafile;
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the second source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the second source chain datafile;
executing a first data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the first source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers;
executing a second data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the second source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers; and presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including a visualization of a change between a result of the first data quality review and the second data quality review.
Claim 1, 6 and 11 recite:
accessing, using a processing unit, a first source chain datafile including data entries identifying linkages between a service provider, a service receiver, and a component provider, of an enterprise, the first source chain datafile covering a first period of time;
translating, using the processing unit, the initial knowledge graph tuples into production knowledge graph tuples according to a source chain knowledge graph schema;
storing, using the processing unit, the production knowledge graph tuples in a production knowledge graph;
ingesting a second source chain datafile covering a second period of time into the production knowledge graph, the second period of time occurring before the first period of time;
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the first source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the first source chain datafile;
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the second source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the second source chain datafile;
executing a first data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the first source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers;
executing a second data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the second source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers; and presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including a visualization of a change between a result of the first data quality review and the second data quality review.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim(s) 1-7 is/are method claims. Claim(s) 8-14 is/are on-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s). Claim(s) 15-20 is/are a system. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recites the following limitation(s):
accessing a first source chain datafile including data entries identifying linkages between a service provider, a service receiver, and a component provider of an enterprise, the first source chain datafile covering a first period of time, (Mental process of observing and evaluating the contents of the datafile which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
translating the data entries into a production knowledge graph tuples according to a source chain knowledge graph schema, (Mental process of observing and evaluating the data entries and making judgement on how the entries can be added to a knowledge graph can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
storing the production knowledge graph tuples in a production knowledge graph, (Mental process reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
ingesting a second source chain datafile covering a second period of time into the production knowledge graph, the second period of time occurring before the first period of time (Mental process of observing and evaluating the data entries within a second source chain datafile and making judgement on how the entries can be added to a knowledge graph can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the first source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the first source chain datafile, (Mental process of observing and making judgement in identifying important/influential “dense” material entities in the knowledge graph can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, and through mathematical concepts)
inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the second source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the second source chain datafile (Mental process of observing and making judgement in identifying important/influential “dense” material entities in the knowledge graph can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, and through mathematical concepts)
executing a first data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the first source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers, (Mental process of observing, evaluation and judgement of mismatches can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, and through mathematical comparative concepts)
executing a second data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the second source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers (Mental process of observing, evaluation and judgement of mismatches can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, and through mathematical comparative concepts)
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the highlighted limitation(s) in the mind and/or using mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing unit” “a user interface on a computing device,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “A system,” “a storage device,” nothing in the claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and/or mathematical calculations. As such, the claim(s) falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recites the following additional elements:
Claim 1, recites: a method comprising: accessing, using a processing unit, a user interface on a computing device ; Claim 8, recites: non-transitory computer-readable medium; a processing unit; Claim 15 recites: system comprising: a processing unit; and a storage device; all of which are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 further recites the follow additional elements:
and presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including a visualization of a change between a result of the first data quality review and the second data quality review (a user interface on a computing device is equivalent to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); further more presenting and displaying is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity)
Accordingly, these 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. Therefore, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does not include additional element(s) 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, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Electric Power Group: selecting/analyzing information and displaying results (data gathering/output).
Therefore, the additional element(s) are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, are related to search interface, graph presentation, selecting a head node based on a search object type, specific centrality metrics and dashboard/chart visualization. These limitations further describe mental process related to information organization, mathematical analysis and presentation of results similar to the analysis provided above with claims 1, 8 and 15, and therefore does not add significantly more.
Prior Art
The present application has been thoroughly reviewed. Upon searching a variety of databases, the examiner respectfully submits that claims 1-20 would be allowable, pending the resolution of the 101 and Double Patenting rejections above, for the following reason(s):
The combination of Leidner et al. (US 20170039500 A1) “Leidner”, Carstens et al. (US 11392875 B2) “Carstens”, Shi et al. (CN 112256887 A) “Shi” and Bajaj et al (US 20150120373 A1) “Bajaj” describes or suggest the certain limitations claims 1, 8 and 15. Leidner describes accessing supply chain data identifying supplier/customer relationships and generating graph structures/triples representing supply-chain relationships, see paragraph [0025-0033, 0043-0048, 0055-0061]. Leidner further describes graph visualizations including nodes and links representing supply chain entities and relationships, see paragraph [0062-0068]. Carstens describes storing supply chain relationship information in a graph database/RDF structure and evaluating importance of supply chain entities using graph centrality metrics including closeness centrality, see col. 8 lines 5-35; col. 10 lines 12-40, col. 13 lines 18-45. Shi describes constructing a supply chain knowledge graph according to ontology/schema relationships, performing data extraction and graph loading operations and performing data verification/checking operations including consistency and integrity checks, see Paragraph (“1-4”) Bottom of Pg. 4- 5. Bajaj describes supply chain dashboards, node network visualizations, monitoring supply chain attributes, and trend analysis over time to identify supply chain risks, see paragraph [0030-0038, 0060-0074, 0100-0115].
However, the combination of Leidner, Carstens, Shi and Bajaj fails to specifically describes or suggest: ingesting a second source chain datafile covering a second period of time into the production knowledge graph, the second period of time occurring before the first period of time; inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the first source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the first source chain datafile; inferring, using the production knowledge graph, material entities in the second source chain datafile based on a centrality metric for entities in the second source chain datafile; executing a first data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the first source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers; executing a second data quality review on tuples in production knowledge graph originating from the second source chain datafile to identify a number of mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers; and presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including a visualization of a change between a result of the first data quality review and the second data quality review.
Specifically, while Carstens teaches graph centrality analysis for determining supplier importance using closeness centrality (col. 13. Lines 18-45). Carstens does not describe identifying “material entities” separately for first period and second period source chain data file and does not describe comparing and identifying mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers in each data file. While Shi teaches data checking operations such as consistency and integrity checking (Paragraph (“1-4”) Bottom of Pg. 4- 5). Shi does not describe mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers, let only identifying the mismatches in separate source chain datafiles. While Bajaj teaches dashboards, trend visualizations, and supply chain risk changes over time (paragraph [0060-0074, 0100-0115]). Bajaj does not describe presenting a visualization of a change between a result of the first data quality review and the second data quality review. Bajaj also does not describe mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers, let only identifying the mismatches in separate source chain datafiles. Similarly, Leidner’s visualization also does not describe mismatches between service receivers designated as critical and non-material service providers, let only identifying the mismatches in separate source chain datafiles.
Therefore, any individual or combination of any of these prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the subject matter as described by the combination of elements highlighted above with the elements presented in each of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PT.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164 05/28/2026
Prosecution Insights