DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on 08/05/2025 in which claims 1-20 are preserved for examination; of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are in independent forms.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim1 is objected to because the term “fsrom” in line 5 is a typo and must be correct to “from”.
Moreover, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the subject matter of “an analytics applications” in line 5. Here, the term “applications” which is plural noun is incorrectly used with article “an”. It should be corrected to “an analytics application.” Also, the term “applications” in line 6 should be corrected accordingly.
Furthermore, in claims 1, 8, and 15, in step of “gathering, at the applications environment…” the term “analytics” is missing before the term “applications.”
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,405,967 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in claims 1-20 of the instant application is fully anticipated by the U.S. Patent No. 12,405,967 and is covered by the patent. As illustrated in the following table, the bolded section of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,405,967 fully discloses the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application:
U.S. Patent No. 12,405,967
Instant Application
1. A system for generating a network graph from analytic artifacts in an analytics environment, comprising: a computer comprising a microprocessor; and an analytics applications environment at the computer; wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform steps comprising: providing a connection from the analytics applications environment to a plurality of metadata sources; gathering, at the analytics applications environment and via the connection to the plurality of metadata sources, and from the plurality of metadata sources, metadata associated with analytic artifacts; converting the gathered metadata associated with analytic artifacts to a format usable within a directed graph; determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each of the plurality of edges defining a relationship between at least two of the plurality of nodes, said determining including determining a type of relationship for each of the determined plurality of edges; assigning each of the plurality of determined nodes a name and a node type based upon the gathered metadata, wherein a first set of the plurality of determined nodes are assigned a type based upon an automatic determination by the analytics application environment, wherein each of the plurality of nodes are respectively associated with a set of properties, wherein each set of properties are customizable based upon the assigned node type; generating, based upon the determined plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges, a directed graph, the directed graph comprising the determined plurality of nodes and the determined plurality of edges; displaying, as an interactive display, all or a portion of the generated directed graph via a user interface, said displaying further comprising an indication of each of the determined type of relationship for each of the determined plurality of edges, said display further comprising, as selectable options, an indication of each of the assigned node types assigned to each node and the respective set of properties for each node, wherein said indication of each assigned node type is displayed upon an indication of a selection of a node; wherein access to the displayed portion of the generated directed graph, including the determined plurality of nodes and the determined plurality of edges, is restricted via an authentication level of a user accessing the displayed portion of the generated directed graph; and wherein, based upon the connection, two of the plurality of determined nodes are determined as nearest neighbors, and, based upon said determination of the two of the plurality of nodes, a visualization comprising all artifacts to which the two nearest neighbor nodes have shared access to is displayed.
1. A system for generating a network graph from analytic artifacts in an analytics environment, comprising: a computer comprising a microprocessor and a memory; and wherein microprocessor is configured to perform steps comprising: providing a connection fsrom an analytics applications environment to a metadata source; gathering, at the applications environment and via the connection, metadata associated with analytic artifacts; determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of nodes; determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of edges between the determined plurality of nodes; generating, based upon the determined plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges, a directed graph; and displaying, via an interactive display, all or a portion of the generated directed graph via a user interface, wherein the display of the all or a portion of the generated directed graph is modified based upon an indication of a received user instruction.
[note that the underlined section of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,405,967 that disclose “an interactive display” that is changes the displayed nodes and edges based on the “selectable options” would disclose the underline section of claim 1]
2-20
2-20
The claims of the patent "anticipate" the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claim. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
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 non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/system/storage medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of:
determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of nodes; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of edges between the determined plurality of nodes; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
generating, based upon the determined plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges, a directed graph; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person with aid of a pen and paper can manually generate a graph with plurality of nodes and edges]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional step of “providing a connection from an analytics applications environment to a metadata source”, “gathering, at the applications environment and via the connection, metadata associated with analytic artifacts”, and “displaying, via an interactive display, all or a portion of the generated directed graph via a user interface, wherein the display of the all or a portion of the generated directed graph is modified based upon an indication of a received user instruction” at a high level of generality. Based on BRI, they could be considered as insignificant extra-solution activities of connecting generic computer components, data gathering, and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the subject matter of “a computer comprising a microprocessor and a memory” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation 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. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional elements (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Claims recite the additional step of “providing a connection from an analytics applications environment to a metadata source”, “gathering, at the applications environment and via the connection, metadata associated with analytic artifacts”, and “displaying, via an interactive display, all or a portion of the generated directed graph via a user interface, wherein the display of the all or a portion of the generated directed graph is modified based upon an indication of a received user instruction” at a high level of generality. Based on BRI, they could be considered as well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of connecting generic computer components, data gathering, and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the subject matter of “a computer comprising a microprocessor and a memory” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation 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. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2, 6, and 7 recite additional generic computer functions of receiving the indication…, metadata repository, and displaying data which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
The dependent claim 3 recites the additional step for assigning data that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
The dependent claim 4, 5, and 7 recites data definition which is non-functional descriptive material failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 recite similar limitations as claims 2-7, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams et al., US 2023/0032686 (Williams, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1,
Williams discloses a system for generating a network graph from analytic
artifacts in an analytics environment., comprising:
a computer comprising a microprocessor and a memory (See Williams: at least Fig. 1A-C and para 82); and wherein microprocessor is configured to perform steps comprising:
providing a connection from an analytics applications environment to a metadata source (See Williams: at least Fig. 1A-C and para 69, 78, 95, 105-107, providing connection via agents to sources (i.e. computer nodes, entities, cloud));
gathering, at the applications environment and via the connection, metadata associated with analytic artifacts (See Williams: at least Fig. 1A-C and para 69, 105-106, 115-141, collecting/gathering data or metadata associated with artifacts such as users, network, files, container, etc.);
determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of nodes (See Williams: at least Fig. 2E-O, para 158, 185, and 219, determining nodes and edges);
determining, from the gathered metadata, a plurality of edges between the determined plurality of nodes (See Williams: at least Fig. 2E-O, para 158, 185, and 219);
generating, based upon the determined plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges, a directed graph (See Williams: at least Fig. 2E-O and para 158, 169, 185-186, 217, and 468, generating a directed graph based on determined nodes and graphs); and
displaying, via an interactive display, all or a portion of the generated directed graph via a user interface, wherein the display of the all or a portion of the generated directed graph is modified based upon an indication of a received user instruction (See Williams: at least Fig. 2E-O, Fig. 4B-4D, and para 170-177, displaying the graph in an interactive GUI, the display of the graph is changed based on the user clicks or inputs).
Regarding claim 2,
Williams discloses receiving the indication of a user instruction via the user interface; and modifying the display of the generated directed graph at the user interface to display at least one shared artifact along a displayed edge (See Williams: at least Fig. 2F-K and para 170-177).
Regarding claim 3,
Williams discloses assigning each of the plurality of determined nodes a node type based upon the gathered metadata (See Williams: at least para 219-221,
245, 255, 269-275, assigning classes or types to a nodes).
Regarding claim 4,
Williams discloses wherein each of the plurality of nodes are respectively associated with a set of properties (See Williams: at least para 194, 218, 245, 248, node properties).
Regarding claim 5,
Williams discloses wherein the metadata source comprises a data visualization (See Williams: at least Fig. 2F-K, Fig. 4B-J and para 170, 213, 462, 464, and 472, data visualization).
Regarding claim 6,
Williams discloses wherein the metadata source comprises a metadata repository (See Williams: at least Fig. 1A-C and para 60, 61, 81, 89, 100, data/metadata sources such as entities or cloud contain storages).
Regarding claim 7,
Williams discloses wherein at least a set of the determined plurality of edges
indicates a directionality between two of the plurality of determined nodes; and wherein such directionality is displayed via the user interface (See Williams: at least Fig. 2F-K, Fig. 4B-J and para 193, 422, and 468).
Regarding claims 8-14,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1-7, respectively.
Regarding claims 15-20,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-6, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1-6, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edge et al., US 2021/0019325 disclosing a method includes extracting a first set of actor-related data, a second set of object-related data, and a third set of temporal data from a set of the already-collected but not yet connected data representative of a unit-level contribution to the target activity. The method further includes generating graph data for at least one graph having a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges using the set of the already-collected but not yet connected data, where each of the plurality of nodes corresponds to the actor or the object, and where an attribute associated with each of the plurality of edges corresponds to a measurement associated with the target activity during a temporal dimension of interest.
Gunawardana et al., US 2022/0188689 disclosing providing a projected graph based prediction including obtaining data from a plurality of servers, determining data entities and dataflows between the data entities based on the obtained data, and generating a first graph including the data entities as nodes and the dataflows between the nodes.
Badawy et al., US 2020/0169565 disclosing artificial intelligence systems for identity management systems performing outlier detection and risk assessment based on identity management data, including one or more property graphs or peer groups determined from those property graphs, to determine identity management artifacts with ‘abnormal’ patterns when compared to other related identity management artifacts.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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 on 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162
07/29/2026
Prosecution Insights