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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, and 17-19 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Examiner Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The present claims are using old elements to apply the recited abstract idea using a processor. The present claims are simply applying generic machine learning and force directed graphs to access based roles. The concept of force-directed graphs is decades old, with early work dating back to the 1960s. The more modern "spring layout" method was developed by Eades in the 1980s, and the well-known Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm was published in 1991.
Further, the additional elements in the claims “A system for”, “the system comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure the at least one processor to:”, “by the at least processor”, and “automatically”) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of providing to a service manager a user role, receive manager’s approval to access an application, and configure access to the user are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of providing access to user based on user’s role and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
The Examiner submits that Applicant’s arguments “claim 1 involve technical computer activities including parsing data sets, manipulating data structures, and configuring user profiles to enable access to computational functions. At least these features are directed to improving security and/or controlling access to computational resources in a computer system. These claimed features do not make sense outside the context of the computing environment and are rooted in computer technology.” Are not persuasive because parsing data sets, manipulating data structures, and configuring user profiles to enable access to computational functions are performed by the processor and improving security is not improving any existing technology but it is with no doubt business improvement.
In addition, with respect to the use of machine learning techniques, it is common practice that such computational models/techniques and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be “trained” based on training data. Hence, a mathematical method may contribute to the technical character of an invention, if it serves as technical purpose or if it regards as specific technical implementation motivated by the internal function of a computer. Elements in the present claims do not solve a technical problem (Applicant’s arguments page 10), but an administrative/business method, i.e. determine user roles in relation to access permissions to one or more computer applications by representing historical data as binary matrix computed using a binary matrix factorization to determine one or more binary values representative of electronic access permissions to one or more computer applications for a plurality of function roles, a plurality of feature vectors are then generated based on the binary matrix representation, and clustering the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clustered feature vectors is a machine learning process. Since the mathematical algorithms or models used in the present application do not serve a technical purpose, but a business purpose, and their implementation does not go beyond generic technical implementation, the use of the artificial intelligence techniques, do not contribute to a technical character and they are to be part of the abstract idea.
In conclusion, the claims lack technical features that would integrate them into a practical application. The Examiner maintains the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of assigning access approval to employees based on roles.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “approving access permissions, transform access data into data structures comprising a binary matrix representation by parsing the access data into a plurality of access sets comprising a user, an access point, and an electronic access permission and computing binary matrix factorization on the plurality of access sets to determine one or more binary values representative of electronic access permissions to one or more computer applications for a plurality of function roles; generate a plurality of feature vectors based on the binary matrix representation; cluster the plurality of feature vectors into a plurality of clustered feature vectors based on a similarity metric, wherein a total number of the plurality of clusters is determined based on a predefined threshold value; generate user roles based on common patterns of the access data, the user roles comprising at least one access point associated with the access data, wherein the at least one access point comprises an electronic access to an electronic data set through at least one of the one or more computer applications, wherein the electronic data set comprises at least one of a computer application, a trading book, a database, infrastructure data, human resources data, and transits data; generate and visualize, based on the data structures, a directed graph representing the relationship between user roles and the at least one access point, wherein the directed graph is a bipartite graph structure, and wherein the user roles and the at least one access point are represented as nodes, and each relationship between a respective user role of the user roles and a respective access point of the at least one access point is represented as an edge between a respective node representing the respective user role and a respective node representing the respective access point, wherein generating the bipartite graph structure comprises: rendering the graph structure using forced directed graphing to apply force to the nodes; and causing a clustering effect to the nodes as to visualize the relationship between the respective user role and the respective access point; present the directed graph and at least one user role assignable to an user profile to an access manager; receive an approval indication associated with the access manager assigning the user role to the user profile; and responsive to receiving the approval, configure a plurality of electronic access permissions enabling the user profile to access one or more computational functions associated with the assigned user role for the at least one access point associated with the assigned user role”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can analyze access data and assign access to employees based on their roles. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 recite a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for analyzing access data and permit access to a user. As a result, claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that does not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for”, “the system comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure the at least one processor to:”, “by the at least processor”, and “automatically”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and training a machine learning model is used to apply the abstract idea. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 10 further recites “A computer-implemented method” and claim 19 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions thereon which, when executed by a processor”, and “by the processor”, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As a result, claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that does not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for”, “the system comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure the at least one processor to:”, “by the at least processor”, and “automatically”, and “automatically”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 10 further recites “A computer-implemented method” and claim 19 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions thereon which, when executed by a processor”, and “by the processor”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As a result, claims 3-6, 8-9 and 12-15, 17-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623