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
The amendment filed 10/28/2025 has been entered. 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Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration.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. 6-7 that under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, amended independent claim 8 Is not directed to an abstract idea because any alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the amendment recites routing write operations with a probability of user data damage to a scratch storage that temporarily holds system changes and dynamically modifies the permeability of such changes, which the Applicant characterizes as a concrete, technical improvement to system operations. Applicant contends that these limitations reflect a particular improvement in predicting and mitigating system disruption based on file access patterns, rather than an abstract concept, and therefore the claims as a whole recite patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the 101 rejection.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but finds them unpersuasive. The amended limitations reciting routing write operations to a scratch storage based on a probability of user data damage merely apply an abstract idea, which is evaluating risk and conditionally directing data, to a generic computer environment using conventional components such as a processor and storage. The claims do not recite a specific technical mechanism or improvement to computer functionality beyond using known data handling techniques to manage potential data loss. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 8 and 10 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112:
Applicant asserts in Remarks pg. 7 that the 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of claims 8 and 10 is improper because the disputed language was present in the claims as originally filed and therefore forms part of the original disclosure. Applicant contends that an originally filed claim may provide its own written description support and may also support later amended claims that incorporate its subject matter. Based on this reasoning, Applicant asserts that the claims sufficiently point out and distinctly claim the invention and requests withdrawal of the 112 rejection and reconsideration of the affected claims.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is directed to an indefiniteness analysis under 35 USC 112(b), whereas the prior Office Action rejected the claims under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description support. As set forth in the prior Office Action, the Specification does not describe or demonstrate possession of a “neural correlator” as recited in the claims. The fact that the term “neural correlator” appears in the claims as originally filed does not, by itself, provide written description support, as compliance with 112(a) must be established by the disclosure in the specification. Applicant has not identified any portion of the specification that describes the claimed neural correlator or provide corresponding structural or algorithmic detail. Accordingly, the 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 8-11, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 Rejection of Claims 8 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a
nonstructural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation
recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the
recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following language is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f):
the neural correlator configured to in Claim 8, Lines 4-5
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-A IA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 8, the claim recites the element of “the neural correlator configured to: convert the set of time-correlated filed activity events into a frequency domain representation”. The Instant Specification does not have support for “neural correlator” element. The Instant Specification merely discloses that the file events are converted to a frequency domain representation in at least ¶[0053]: “At step 604, the events are converted to a frequency domain representation. In order to convert an event into a frequency, the time between the last two matching events (in this example, the last two accesses) is considered to be the relevant time frame for the grouping.”. However, the paragraph does not disclose anything about using “the neural correlator” to do this conversion step. In the next response, please point to the portions of the specification supporting this limitation.
Dependent claim 10 inherits the deficiencies of the independent claim 8 and thereby is also rejected under the same rationale.
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 neural correlator 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 neural correlator 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.
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 neural correlator 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 neural correlator 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)).
wherein the processor causes write operations having 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 a neural correlator 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 neural correlator 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.).
wherein the processor causes write operations having 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 /VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126