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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computer-implemented method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “identifying graph data that comprises a plurality of vertices connected by a plurality of edges”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses Mental Processes (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). This limitation can be performed by an individual. For example, a person can draw nodes and edges on a paper and identify relationships between them mentally without using a machine. Therefore, this step falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “receiving a query for the graph data”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, a person asking for information in a database and getting an answer is a fundamental human interaction. Therefore, this step falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
storing at least a portion of the graph data in a key-value store;
retrieving the graph data via the key-value store; and
returning the retrieved graph data in response to the query.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The storing, retrieving, and returning steps are generic computer functions that do not improve the functioning of the computer itself; they simply use the computer's memory and network capabilities to store data, access that data, and transmit it. Consequently, these limitations do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(a).
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “storing in a key-value store” is a generic mechanism for data persistence. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
The claim does not recite a particular transformation of a specific article or subject matter into another form using physical elements; the data remains digital information throughout the process.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
The additional limitations are generic computer components (e.g., graph, key-value store) and data handling steps (e.g., storing, retrieving, returning) that do not amount to meaningful limitations under MPEP 2106.05(e). Retrieving and returning data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps simply apply simple technology to perform the abstract mental process of querying and identifying relationships.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The activities of storing, retrieving, and returning data in response to a query are categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps merely describe the basic functions of a computer system used to implement the claimed idea.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “storing at least a portion of the graph data in a key-value store; retrieving the graph data via the key-value store” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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. Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B, examine the elements of the independent claim—both individually and as an ordered combination—to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. The additional elements only utilize standard computer functions to execute the method using generic components like key-value stores for storage and retrieval without any specific technical improvement or unconventional configuration that solves a technical problem in a non-generic manner, then the claim remains directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the graph data comprises: forward edge indices; reverse edge indices; or temporal indices” The claim includes index types without improving computer functioning or solving a technical problem in an unconventional way.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the graph data comprises a time-to-live value attached to at least one of an edge or a vertex” The TTL concept is well-understood in the industry for managing memory resources, and attaching TTL to nodes or edge does not create a unique workflow or solve an unconventional technical problem.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the graph data comprises a plurality of partitions configured such that data is isolated between each partition in the plurality of partitions”. The claim describes nonoverlapping partitioning data, the technique is well-understood.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the graph data comprises a plurality of partitions configured such that a given vertex or edge may be stored in more than one partition within the plurality of partitions” The claim describes a node or edge can be a member of one or more partition(s) (i.e., overlapping partitions). The technique is well-understood.
Claim 6 recites “receiving an instruction to modify a specified portion of the graph data; retrieving a pointer the specified portion of the graph data via the key-value store; and modifying the specified portion of the graph data” The claim describes a workflow for updating graph data but relies on generic computer operations of receiving, accessing, and modifying stored information.
Claim 7 recites “wherein modifying the specified portion of the graph data comprises: identifying a vertex to be modified based on the instruction; retrieving a maximum number of allowed edges for the vertex; and determining that the instruction does not add an edge to the vertex that exceeds the maximum number of allowed edges.” The claim includes steps of identifying and determining that are observations, judgements, or a mental process.
Claim 8 recites “wherein storing at least the portion of the graph data in the key-value store comprises storing a record of modifications to the graph data in a time-series database” The claim specifies a mechanism for tracking changes, but logging modifications is well-understood.
Claim 9 recites “receiving the query for the graph data comprises receiving a query for temporal information about the modifications to the graph data; and retrieving the graph data via the key-value store comprises retrieving data from the time-series database” The claim includes steps receiving a query (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity) and retrieving the data is a post solution activity. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of data management
Claims 10-18 are similar to claims 1-9, claims 19-20 are similar to claims 1-2. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merschel (U.S. Pub 2024/0119091)
Claim 1
Merschel discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying graph data that comprises a plurality of vertices connected by a plurality of edges ([0028], line 8-9, “… The graph may be a collection of nodes… and edges…”);
storing at least a portion of the graph data in a key-value store ([0003], line 5, “… storing a graph in the key-value store…”);
receiving a query for the graph data ([0053], line 3-4, “… upon receiving a query for a node…”);
retrieving the graph data via the key-value store ([0053], line 4-5, “… the identifier of the requested node may be searched in the key parts of the key-value store. It may be determined… the list of nodes of the k-hop neighborhood of the searched nodes…”); and
returning the retrieved graph data in response to the query ([0070], line 20-25, “… For example, to query for the neighbors of node “F”, the query may be executed… which would return the Key “F [C, A]” from which the neighboring nodes may be derived…”)
Claim 10 and 19 are similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reason
Claim 4
Claim 1 is included, Merschel discloses wherein the graph data comprises a plurality of partitions configured such that data is isolated between each partition in the plurality of partitions ([0032], “… the graph may be broken down into clusters… The nodes in these clusters may be stored on the same, or adjacent, pages…” <examiner note: clusters are considered as partitions>)
Claim 13 is similar to claim 4. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merschel (U.S. Pub 2024/0119091), as applied to claim 1, 10, and 19 respectively, and further in view of Bensberg (U.S. Pub 2025/0190492 A1)
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, however, Merschel does not explicitly disclose wherein the graph data comprises: forward edge indices; reverse edge indices; or temporal indices.
Bensberg discloses wherein the graph data comprises: forward edge indices; reverse edge indices ([0031], “… dual adjacency indexes, a first index for source-target relationships and a second for target-source relationships…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include dual adjacency matrix as disclosed by Bensberg into Merschel because the dual adjacency indexes provide more optimized query performance because of the capability for bi-directional data retrieval. Additionally, dual adjacency indexes could provide consistent transactional visibility for either direction of traversal because both indexes contribute to consistent transactional visibility for relationships, regardless of the direction…” [0031]
Claim 6
Claim 1 is included, Bensberg discloses further comprising:
receiving an instruction to modify a specified portion of the graph data ([0024], “… graph script procedure 122 may be a generated script or set of instructions for performing tasks for manipulating or analyzing graph data stored in document store 102…” [0032], “… this execution includes processing JSON documents in JSON storage 104 to extract or update node and edge attributes based on the requested command or query…”);
retrieving a pointer (references) the specified portion of the graph data via the key-value store ([0045], “… Hash map 302 is configured to store key-value pairs, where the keys represent nodes… and the values are references to associated documents…” [0047], “… Hash map 302 provides efficient lookup for nodes; for example, once a node is located in the hash map (e.g., in response to a task from graph script procedure 122), document array 304 may facilitate quick retrieval of relationship information…” ); and
modifying the specified portion of the graph data ([0024], “… graph script procedure 122 may be… set of instructions for performing tasks for manipulating or analyzing graph data…” [0026], “…an output of executing a graph script procedure 122… is a heterogeneous graph structure… the heterogeneous graph structure may be dynamically updated as new data is stored in document store 102 or as stored data is updated…”)
Claim 8
Claim 1 is included, Bensberg further discloses wherein storing at least the portion of the graph data in the key-value store comprises storing a record of modifications to the graph data in a time-series database ([0051], “… each entry in value vector table 314 may have a create timestamp (CTS) and delete timestamp (DTS)… When an entry in JSON storage 104 is created… The corresponding CTS associated with the change may then be stored as a CTS. When an entry is deleted (e.g., via an UPDATE or DELETE in JSON storage 104), a DTS may be written in the adjacency index 106….”)
Claim 9
Claim 8 is included, Bensberg discloses wherein: receiving the query for the graph data comprises receiving a query for temporal information about the modifications to the graph data; and retrieving the graph data via the key-value store comprises retrieving data from the time-series database ([0046] In some embodiments, hash map 302 in the hash set data structure efficiently maps node identifiers (e.g., source nodes) to corresponding entries in the data structure….” [0054] The presence of row index 312 allows for efficient sequential traversal of nodes, such as when tasks require processing or analyzing the graph in a sequential order, such as during graph algorithms or graph analytics…”)
Claims 11, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are similar to claims 2, 6, 8, and 9. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons
Claim 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merschel (U.S. Pub 2024/0119091), as applied to claim 1 and 10 respectively, and further in view of Englehart (U.S. Pub 2026/0030297 A1)
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, however, Mershel does not explicitly disclose wherein the graph data comprises a time-to-live value attached to at least one of an edge or a vertex.
Englehart discloses wherein the graph data comprises a time-to-live value attached to at least one of an edge or a vertex ([0232], “… The patient node may… be linked to the attribute node through a lifetime edge…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lifetime edge as disclosed by Englehart into Merschel because a lifetime property of an edge can serve as an evidence for the lifetime relationship between the entity nodes.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 3. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merschel (U.S. Pub 2024/0119091), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Community Structure in Graphs written by Fortunato, 17 Dec, 2007
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, however, Merschel does not explicitly disclose wherein the graph data comprises a plurality of partitions configured such that a given vertex or edge may be stored in more than one partition within the plurality of partitions.
Fortunato discloses wherein the graph data comprises a plurality of partitions configured such that a given vertex or edge may be stored in more than one partition within the plurality of partitions (pg. 9, In this case, it makes sense to consider such intermedia vertices as belonging to more groups, which are then called overlapping communities <examiner note: green nodes and edges directly connected to the green nodes belong to multiple partitions>)
PNG
media_image1.png
408
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider nodes and/edges are members of more than one partitions/groups as disclosed by Fortunato into Merschel because people usually belong to more communities, according to their personal life and interests: for instance a person may have tight relationships both with the people of its working environment and with other individuals involved in common free time activities. Accounting for overlaps is also a way to better exploit the information that one can derive from topology. Ideally, one could estimate the degree of participation of a vertex in different communities, which corresponds to the likelihood that the vertex belongs to the various groups.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 5. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merschel (U.S. Pub 2024/0119091), in view of Bensberg (U.S. Pub 2025/0190492 A1), as applied to claim 6 and 15 respectively, and further in view of What to Do When Your Facebook Profile is Maxed Out on Friends by Stephanie Chandler, Dec 5, 2012
Claim 7
Claim 6 is included, Bensberg discloses wherein modifying the specified portion of the graph data comprises: identifying a vertex to be modified based on the instruction ([0045], “… Hash map 302 is configured to store key-value pairs, where the keys represent nodes of a heterogeneous graph, and the values are references to associated documents or rows of document array 304…”)
However, Bensberg does not explicitly disclose
retrieving a maximum number of allowed edges for the vertex; and
determining that the instruction does not add an edge to the vertex that exceeds the maximum number of allowed edges.
Chandler discloses retrieving a maximum number of allowed edges for the vertex (“… If you’ve been using your personal Facebook profile for business connections, you can eventually hit the point where Facebook won’t allow you to add more friends. The maximum number of connections allowed on Facebook—including friends and page Likes—is 5,000…” <examiner not: maximum number of connections/edge is 5000>); and determining that the instruction does not add an edge to the vertex that exceeds the maximum number of allowed edges (you can eventually hit the point where Facebook won’t allow you to add more friends)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include checking maximum number of allowed connection before modifying the graph data (i.e., adding new connection) as disclosed by Chandler into Bensberg so that the user will remove inactive nodes in order to add additional nodes when the connections are exceeds the maximum number of out-degree of the node.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 7. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights