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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/14/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 previously set forth in the Final office Action mailed 01/14/2026. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 8, 10 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 8 is amended.
Claims 9, 11-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
In reference to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts in Remarks pg. 6-8 that claim 8 is not directed merely to mathematical analysis or abstract data processing because the claimed restricted Boltzmann machine output is used in a specific computing system to determine whether file changes have some probability of causing user data damage. Based on that determination, the system controls write operations by routing potentially harmful changes to scratch storage, thereby dynamically regulating whether changes are committed or temporarily isolated. Applicant therefore contends that the claim integrates and recites a specific improvement to computer functionality, rather than merely analyzing or reporting data.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully notes that the newly added limitation that “the output value is indicative of changes to user data and is used in determining whether changes have some probability of user data damage” does not overcome the 101 rejection because it merely describes what the analyzed output value represents and how the result is used in making a determination. The amendment still relies on data analysis, correlation, and risk determination, which remain abstract idea. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement to how the computer or the file system operates, nor does it provide a particular technical mechanism for determining the probability of user data damage. Instead, the claim broadly uses a computed output value to assess risk and then applies that assessment in a generic computing environment. Therefore, the amendment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not add significantly more than the abstract data analysis process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101 is applicable when the claims are not invoking the Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112(f)
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 8, 10 are rejected under U.S.C 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
[a trained neural network executable by a processor to] convert a set of time-correlated file activity event streams to a matrix representing a time-varying value This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.) as converting data (time-correlated file activity event streams) to a matrix format involves organizing and structuring the data according to mathematical principles. This process includes mapping time-varying values to appropriate positions in the matrix, which is also a mathematical operation.
[the a trained neural network configured to] convert the set of time-correlated file activity events into a frequency domain representation; This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
apply a frequency decomposition to the frequency domain representation, thereby collapsing the frequency domain representation into a frequency spectrum, wherein the set of time-correlated file activity events include a set of time-varying signals, the time-varying signals representing human business activities; This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.) as a frequency decomposition here is interpreted as the Fourier transform, which is inherently a mathematical operation. It involves transforming a time-domain signal into its frequency-domain components, which is a fundamental mathematical concept in signal processing.
group events associated with the set of time-varying signals into time- oriented classes, - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
convert measurements of the frequency of similarly grouped events into scalar values This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.) as the conversion process here is done by using an observed function to map a matrix to a scalar value, which means applying a mathematical function or operation to the elements of the matrix to produce a single scalar value
concatenate multiple ones of the matrix representing the time-varying value into a single multidimensional matrix along a shared time scale This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.) as concatenating matrices involves mathematical manipulation and organization of the matrix data.
the restricted Boltzmann machine is used to form a mapping between input values associated with the file activity events and an output value as a non-linear correlation, This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.) as the mapping of input values to an output value using an restricted Boltzmann machine involves non-linear functions and transformations, which are mathematical in nature.
the output value is indicative of changes to user data and is used in determining whether changes have some probability of user data damage - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
A system for correlating institutional patterns with an expected value result, the system comprising – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
a trained neural network executable by a processor – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
the trained neural network configured to – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
using frequency subcomponents with amplitudes from the frequency spectrum; – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
a restricted Boltzmann machine Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
wherein the output value is read from an output of the restricted Boltzmann machine to correlate institutional patterns with the expected value result This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the processor causes write operations having some [[a]] probability of user data damage to be routed to a scratch storage that provides a temporary holding location for changes to the system, thereby modifying a permeability of changes on a dynamically changing basis. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
A system for correlating institutional patterns with an expected value result, the system comprising– This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
a trained neural network executable by a processor – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
the trained neural network configured to – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
using frequency subcomponents with amplitudes from the frequency spectrum; – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
a restricted Boltzmann machine Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
wherein the output value is read from an output of the restricted Boltzmann machine to correlate institutional patterns with the expected value result – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
the processor causes write operations having some [[a]] probability of user data damage to be routed to a scratch storage that provides a temporary holding location for changes to the system, thereby modifying a permeability of changes on a dynamically changing basis. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 8 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
[an amplitude filter] removing events below a certain amplitude from the time-varying signals - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.) because one could review data points and discard those that do not meet the amplitude criterion.
an amplitude filter Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are considered allowable over the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/AMY TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights