DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 12 November 2025, in response to the Office Action mailed 25 July 2025. The applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered, with the results that follow.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and receive assets” appears as though it should be “and receiving assets” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-14 depend upon claim 8, and thus include the aforementioned limitation(s).
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “based the set of actors” appears as though it should be “based on the set of actors” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-20 depend upon claim 15, and thus include the aforementioned limitation(s).
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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation "the cognitive model” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 depend upon claim 8, and thus include the aforementioned limitation(s).
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. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process and/or mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as described below.
Step 1 for all claims:
Under the first part of the analysis, claims 1-20 recite a method. Accordingly, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2, and Step 2B, as described below.
As per claim 1:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mental process and/or mathematical concept elements:
A method for defuzzifying multiple qualitative signals into human-centric threat notifications, comprising – a data scientist can defuzzify a qualitative signal and produce a human-centric threat notification.
normalizing actor data using a common taxonomy – the data scientist normalizes actor data using a common taxonomy. Alternatively/additionally – normalization is a mathematical calculation.
determining anomalous behavior between actors considered peers – the data scientist determines what constitutes anomalous behavior between peer actors. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing behavior values between peer actors.
examining changes in actor behavior over time, and assessing actor changes in behavior over time – the data scientist examines and assesses how actors change in behavior over time. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing behavior over time.
comparing action values for each actor and average action values for each actor against threshold values to derive normal behavior baseline – the data scientist compares action values and average action values for each actor against a threshold to determine a normal behavior baseline. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing action values to a threshold.
and comparing one action value against one threshold to determine a compatibility index – the data scientist compares an action value against a threshold to determine a compatibility index. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing an action value to a threshold (see also the description of the compatibility index on pgs. 35, 50, etc. of the specification as filed).
detecting and signaling an anomaly indicating a threat relevant to one actor when one determined compatibility index is outside a normal fuzzy number range – the data scientist compares the compatibility index to a normal fuzzy number range to detect and signal an anomaly. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing a compatibility index to a normal fuzzy number range.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
and distributing normalized actor data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
using a series of knowledge nodes comprising a supervisory hardware node and a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
receiving relevant actor data as action values for each actor – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
in response to detecting and signaling the anomaly indicating the threat, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the anomaly signaled data and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
and distributing normalized actor data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
using a series of knowledge nodes comprising a supervisory hardware node and a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
receiving relevant actor data as action values for each actor – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
in response to detecting and signaling the anomaly indicating the threat, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the anomaly signaled data and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 2:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each anomaly has properties including severity and degree of inconsistency from normal behavior represented by mathematical distance – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
wherein severity is a class of anomaly – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
assigned by an analytical component that detected and measured the anomaly – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each anomaly has properties including severity and degree of inconsistency from normal behavior represented by mathematical distance – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
wherein severity is a class of anomaly – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
assigned by an analytical component that detected and measured the anomaly – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 3:
The claim recites the following additional mental process elements:
further comprising detecting and signaling hazards – the data scientist can determine/detect and signal hazards.
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard is an unperfected threat associated with an actor without regard to any related assets or behavior of other actors – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard is an unperfected threat associated with an actor without regard to any related assets or behavior of other actors – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 4:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard represents risk to an enterprise based on cumulative multi-dimensional behaviors comprising anomalous states generated from thresholds, orders of operations, peer-to-peer similarity, and actor behavior change over time – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard represents risk to an enterprise based on cumulative multi-dimensional behaviors comprising anomalous states generated from thresholds, orders of operations, peer-to-peer similarity, and actor behavior change over time – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 5:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard has two properties comprising severity and weighted risk – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a hazard has two properties comprising severity and weighted risk – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 6:
The claim recites the following additional mental process elements:
further comprising detecting and signaling threats – the data scientist can determine/detect and signal threats.
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a threat is a perfected threat that ties together actors with behaviors of other actors and assets used by all actors in a hazard collection – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein a threat is a perfected threat that ties together actors with behaviors of other actors and assets used by all actors in a hazard collection – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 7:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein: threats develop a sequence of operations over a dynamic time-frame – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and threats are connected in a heterogeneous graph comprising nodes and edges, wherein the nodes can be actors or assets and the edges define the dynamic time-frame as well as strength of their connection as a function of risk – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein: threats develop a sequence of operations over a dynamic time-frame – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and threats are connected in a heterogeneous graph comprising nodes and edges, wherein the nodes can be actors or assets and the edges define the dynamic time-frame as well as strength of their connection as a function of risk – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 8:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mental process and/or mathematical concept elements:
computing a trust value of the cognitive model as a fuzzy number and activating a cognitive model based on the trust value – a data scientist computes a trust value of a cognitive model as a fuzzy number and determines whether to activate a cognitive model based on the trust value. Alternatively/additionally – computing the trust value is a mathematical calculation.
normalizing data using a common taxonomy – the data scientist normalizes data using a common taxonomy. Alternatively/additionally – normalization is a mathematical calculation.
determining anomalous behavior between actors considered peers, the anomalous behavior representing a detected anomaly indicating a threat relevant to one actor – the data scientist looks determines whether there is anomalous behavior between peer actors indicating a threat relevant to one actor. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing normalized data between peer actors.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A method comprising: receiving a set of actors and associated actor information and receive assets – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and distributing normalized data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
using a supervisory hardware node and a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
in response to determining the detected anomaly, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the anomaly signaled data and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A method comprising: receiving a set of actors and associated actor information and receive assets – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and distributing normalized data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
using a supervisory hardware node and a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
in response to determining the detected anomaly, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the anomaly signaled data and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9: is substantially similar to claim 2 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 10: is substantially similar to claim 3 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 11: is substantially similar to claim 4 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 12: is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 13: is substantially similar to claim 6 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim 14: is substantially similar to claim 7 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 15:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mental process and/or mathematical concept elements:
creating a cognitive model based the set of actors and associated actor information – a data scientist creates a cognitive model from a set of actors and associated actor information.
computing a trust value of the cognitive model as a fuzzy number and activating the cognitive model based on the trust value – the data scientist computes a trust value of a cognitive model as a fuzzy number and determines whether to activate a cognitive model based on the trust value. Alternatively/additionally – computing the trust value is a mathematical calculation.
normalizing actor data using a common taxonomy – a data scientist normalizes actor data using a common taxonomy. Alternatively/additionally – normalization is a mathematical calculation.
determining anomalous behavior between actors considered peers based on the normalized data … wherein the anomalous behavior comprises a detected anomaly indicating a threat relevant to one actor – the data scientist looks at the normalized data and determines whether there is anomalous behavior indicating a threat relevant to each actor. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing normalized data between peer actors.
and signaling an anomaly based on actor behavior over time, and actor changes in behavior over time – the data scientist determines whether an anomaly occurs based on looking at actor behavior over time and changes in behavior over time. Alternatively/additionally – this is a mathematical calculation, comparing behavior values between peer actors over time.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A method comprising: receiving a set of actors and associated actor information – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and distributing normalized data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
in response to determining the detected anomaly, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the detected anomaly and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A method comprising: receiving a set of actors and associated actor information – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and distributing normalized data across a plurality of knowledge hardware nodes – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
in response to determining the detected anomaly, performing a threat reduction action comprising excluding data based on the detected anomaly and data content properties – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
and transmitting an alert to a client system for threat mitigation, thereby improving system performance by reducing client system processing of detected threats – this amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or at most generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16: is substantially similar to claim 2 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 17: is substantially similar to claim 3 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18: is substantially similar to claim 4 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 19: is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 20: is substantially similar to claim 6 and thus rejected for the similar reasons as claim 6.
Response to Arguments
The objections have been withdrawn/updated (as shown above), due to the amendments filed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn/updated (as shown above), due to the amendments filed.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended method claims “integrate concepts into practical application via real-time reduction of client system processing of detected threats, improving technology (network performance).”
While the examiner has identified (above) what constitutes the abstract idea and what is drawn to conventional components, the Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process, where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims must also include more than just instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is eligible based upon similarities to Example 47.
However, as applicant notes, Example 47 “does not recite any abstract ideas, such as a mathematical concept, mental process, or method of organizing activity…” while the claimed invention in the instant application does recite abstract idea, as identified above.
Applicant also argues that the claimed method involves a “detailed, multi-step process for managing and analyzing data across distributed hardware nodes” that is a “concrete improvement to a technological system, specifically a distributed computing architecture handing complex data normalization, event processing, and anomaly detection to improve system performance.”
However, performing anomaly detection by a generically-recited system of “knowledge hardware nodes” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claimed invention does not include any complex data normalization or event processing, or a specific distributed architecture. Furthermore, any “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities” provided by the claimed invention appears to come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and is therefore not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant also argues that the claims recite “highly specific operations” such as “computing a trust value of the cognitive model as a fuzzy number,” etc.
However, as described above, computing a trust value of a cognitive model as a fuzzy number is a mental process and/or mathematical concept. The claim does not recite how the trust value is computed in any way, which might otherwise indicate that it could not be performed mentally, and it is not clear how this constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that these steps “cannot reasonably be performed mentally or with pen and paper due to their dependence on distributed hardware, real-time event processing, and fuzzy logic computations.” Applicant further argues that the limitations are “integrated into a broader, practical system involving distributed nodes and real-time event processing that improves system performance by identifying and addressing anomalies.”
However, performing a mental process on generic distributed computer components amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant also argues that “the use of ‘fuzzy numbers’ for trust and the other steps recited disclose a specialized implementation, not a generic mathematical exercise.”
However, although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").
Applicant also argues that “generic computing does not involve fuzzy logic trust assessments or distributed architectures with supervisory oversight.”
However, generic fuzzy logic and distributed nodes amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite specific fuzzy logic components or distributed architectures.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention “[addresses] a challenge in distributed systems: detecting and accounting for or auditing anomalous behavior among actors (e.g., users, devices, or entities) in a scalable, real-time manner” and that this suggests “a practical application for system monitoring” in which conventional methods fall short, while the use of “fuzzy number” trust values “adds technical specificity, improving accuracy and adaptability beyond well-known techniques.”
However, any “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities” provided by the claimed invention appears to come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and is therefore not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the use of fuzzy number trust values amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Applicant also argues that “prior methods lacked the ability to dynamically assess trust using fuzzy logic or distribute normalized data across nodes for real-time anomaly detection.”
However, using generic fuzzy logic amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Also, distributing normalized data across generic nodes is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Applicant also argues that the claimed method is not simply a generic computing tool.
However, the recited method steps include the abstract idea, being performed by generic computer components and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type (see above).
Applicant further argues that, with respect to step 2A, the method steps claimed in the claimed invention “are sufficient to confer patentability on these claims under § 101. The totality of the elements claimed are specific in order to perform particular specified functionality.”
However, the claimed elements have been addressed, both individually and as a whole, above. It is not clear how the specific order to perform specified functionality makes the claims eligible under step 2A (e.g., a specifically ordered mental process containing specific mental steps would still be drawn to an abstract idea, etc.)
Applicant also argues, regarding step 2B, that “the claims recite elements that add significantly more to the judicial exception.”
However, the additional elements have been addressed, both individually and as a whole, above.
Applicant also argues that the functional method steps are “not well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, but are specific detailed functions not known within the industry.”
However, although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").
Any further arguments are addressed similarly to those above.
Conclusion
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i): claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Agrusa et al. (U.S. 2009/0210071) – discloses a system including data visualization for operation reports.
Budzienski et al. (U.S. 2015/0169774) – discloses a system including normalization performed on jobseeker data and merging of schema to analyze the data, including fuzzy logic.
Laidlaw (US 2015/0163242) – discloses a system using fuzzy inference on packet data to perform threat/intrusion detection.
Sanchez Charles (US 2017/0083815) – discloses a system that determines anomalies using a normality score for an event and similarity to a model representing normal behavior.
Stute (US 2013/0117852) – discloses anomaly detection using thresholds for set time periods.
Cook (US 2005/0257265 and US 2005/0257266) – disclose utilizing fuzzy logic to determine a trust score and compare to a threshold to determine normal/proper behavior of a system for intrusion detection.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE GIROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-9769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached on 571-272-2589. 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.
/GEORGE GIROUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128