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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/3/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-90 were previously canceled. Claims 93, 96-104, and 107 are newly canceled. Claims 91-92, 94-95, 105, 108-110 have been amended. Claims 91-92, 94-95, 105-106, and 108-110 are pending in the application.
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 91-92, 94-95, 105-106, and 108-110 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 91, claim 91 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the system must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative system. The following is a non-exhaustive listing of claim 91 indefinite language examples:
Lines 1-2 in the preamble reciting in part “A computer security system based upon artificial intelligence, the computer system comprising:” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear because it is unclear whether “the computer system” is referring the computer security system, a specific portion of the computer security system, another computer system, or something else and thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 7-8 in the claim limitations reciting in part “wherein the system is a computer implemented system being Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM)” is unclear because “wherein the system” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if/how “the system” relates to “A computer security system”, “the computer system”, or something else. Additionally, it is unclear whether “being Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM)” is to be interpreted as a verb, noun, or something else and to the metes and bounds of the limitation “wherein the system is a computer implemented system being Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM)” being unclear thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 9 in the claim limitations reciting in part “wherein the LOM engages with a human subject the subject to concede” is unclear because “the subject” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if/how it relates to “a human subject”, a topic as a “subject” concept, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 10 in the claim limitations reciting in part “improve an argument provided by the subject against the stance of LOM” is unclear because “the stance of LOM” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what specific stance is being referred and if “of LOM” refers to the same “the LOM” or another separate LOM thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 13 in the claim limitations reciting in part “by a Human Subject (HS)” is unclear because it is unclear if/how this “Human Subject (HS)” is the same as “a human subject” recited in line 9 or a separate specific “Human Subject (HS)” thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 19-20 in the claim limitations reciting in part “a proposition in the form of an assertion or question and provides output of the concepts to the proposition” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear because it is unclear what specific “the form” and “the concepts” are being referred to as they lack antecedent basis thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 21-22 in the claim limitations reciting in part “which is an interface for presenting a conclusion drawn by Assertion Construction (AC) to both the Human Subject (HS) and Rational Appeal (RA)” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear because it is unclear if these limitations should be interpreted as a presented drawing by a displayed interface that is performed Assertion Construction to connect via a visible line to both the Human Subject and Rational Appeal displayed in the interface or that these are logical connections linked in the system, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 27, 32, and 38 in the claim limitations reciting “the LOM system”…”the LOM system…, and connects LOM” is unclear as there is lack of antecedent basis before the introduction of “the LOM system” in line 27 and it is unclear subsequently in line 38 whether “the LOM system” is the same as “LOM” or not. Additionally, it is unclear if/how “LOM” recited in line 38 is related to “the LOM” recited in line 9 or “LOM” recited in line 10 thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 36 in the claim limitations reciting in part “criticizes the reasons of appeal given by the HS;” is unclear as there is lack of antecedent basis for “the reasons” and it is unclear what specific reasons are being claimed thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 38-40 in the claim limitations reciting in part “connects LOM to Front End Services, Back End Services, Third Party Application Dependencies, Information Sources, and the an internet cloud” is unclear because the “Front End Services, Back End Services, Third Party Application Dependencies, Information Sources” are recited as proper nouns and it is unclear how to interpret these proper nouns either as system modules or something else. Additionally “the an internet cloud” appear to be a typographical error however it is unclear whether the intent is to specify a specific instance of an internet cloud or not thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 48-49 in the claim limitations reciting in part “with the initial request thereby accomplishing the objective of SC” is unclear because “the initial request” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which initial request is being claimed, “the objective of SC” is unclear because it is not which specific objective of which SC is being referred to and if “SC” is referring to the same instance of “Survey Clarification (SC)” introduce in line 16 or should be interpreted as a separate instance thus the claim is indefinite.
Lines 51 and 58 in the claim limitations reciting in part “received by the SC” and “collected from the HS via Survey Clarification (SC))” is unclear because it is unclear if these claim elements are referring to the same “Survey Clarification (SC)” first recited in line 16 or the “SC” referred to in line 49, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 53 in the claim limitations reciting in part “the original Question/Assertion to ascertain the logical compatibility result” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear as “the original Question/Assertion” and “the logical compatibility result” lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what specifics are being claimed thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 54-56 in the claim limitations reciting in part “the compatibility results from the CCD…encompasses the gradients of variables implicit in the concept makeup” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear as the underlined recited elements lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what specifics are being claimed thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 58 in the claim limitations reciting in part “the information collected from the HS” is unclear because “the information” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what particular information collected from the HS is being claimed thus the claim is indefinite.
Regarding dependent claims 92, 94-95, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for as at least being dependent upon the rejected base claim 91 and these claims do not cure deficiencies of base claim 91. Additionally, dependent claims 92, 94-95’s preamble recites in part “The system” which is unclear as their respective base claim 91 recite “A computer security system..., the computer system” and it is unclear which “system” dependent claims 92, 94-95 are claiming dependency from.
Regarding independent claim 105, claim 105 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the system must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative system. The following is a non-exhaustive listing of claim 105 indefinite language examples:
Lines 14-15 in the claim limitations reciting in part “presenting a conclusion drawn by the AC module through a Response Presentation Interface (RPI) to both the Human Subject (HS) and a Rational Appeal (RA) module” is unclear because it is unclear if these limitations should be interpreted as visually presenting a drawing through a displayed RPI interface that is performed by the AC module to connect via a visible line to both a representation of the Human Subject and the Rational Appeal module displayed in the RPI interface or that these are logical connections linked in the system, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 2 of the preamble introduces “a Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM) system”, lines 25-26 in the claim limitations reciting in part “an internet cloud instance of the LOM system with a master instance of CKR, and connecting LOM to various services” (underlining added for emphasis) is unclear because it is unclear if/how “LOM” should be differentiated from “the LOM system”, if this is a separate instance, should be interpreted as a LOM technique, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 21 reciting in part “assimilation into the CKR”, lines 25 and 31 reciting in part “a master instance of CKR” and “using Concept Discovery (CD) with CKR” is unclear because it is unclear if/how “CKR” relates to “the CKR”, if “CKR” and “the CKR” are distinct, or something else thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 18 reciting in part “calculating benefits and risks of stances” and line 42 reciting in part “calculating benefits and risks based on compatibility results” are unclear if these are referring to the same or different “benefits and risks” thus the claim is indefinite.
Line 36 reciting in part “amending the original Question/Assertion” is unclear as “the original Question/Assertion” lacks antecedent basis thus the claim is indefinite.
Regarding dependent claims 106, 108-110, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for as at least being dependent upon the rejected base claim 105 and these claims do not cure deficiencies of base claim 105.
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 91-92, 94-95, 105-106, and 108-110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 91
Step 1: This claim recites “A computer security system…the computer system comprising:”; thus this claim is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the LOM engages with a human subject to allow the subject to concede or improve an argument provided by the subject against the stance: These limitations recite certain method of organizing human activity relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people wherein the Lexical Objectivity Mining LOM as a technique engages with a human subject to allow the subject to concede or improve an argument provided by the subject against the stance is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the courts involving methods of organizing human activity such as considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
a) Initial Query Reasoning (IQR), to which a question input by a Human Subject (HS) is transferred, and which leverages Central Knowledge Retention (CKR) to decipher missing details that are crucial in understanding and answering/responding to the question;
b) Survey Clarification (SC), to which the question and supplemental query data are transferred, and which receives input from and sends output to the Human Subject (HS), and forms a Clarified Question/Assertion (CQ/A);
c) Assertion Construction (AC), which receives a proposition in the form of an assertion or question and provides output of the concepts related to the proposition;
d) Response Presentation (RP), which is an interface for presenting a conclusion drawn by Assertion Construction (AC) to both the Human Subject (HS) and Rational Appeal (RA);
e) Hierarchical Mapping (HM), which maps associated concepts to find corroboration or conflict in Question/Assertion consistency, and calculates benefits and risks of having a certain stance on a topic;
g) Knowledge Validation (KV), which receives knowledge, wherein the knowledge which needs to be logically separated for query capability and assimilation into the CKR;
h) Accept Response, which is a choice given to the Human Subject (HS) to either accept a response of the LOM system or to appeal the response with a criticism, wherein if the response is accepted, then the response is processed by KV so that the response can be stored in CKR as confirmed knowledge, wherein should the HS not accept the response, then the response is forwarded to the RA, which checks and criticizes the reasons of appeal given by the HS: These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are interpreted as specifically labeled techniques/functions that recite certain methods of organizing human activity relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including a) deciphering missing details of a question, b) input transferred from a human subject while forming a clarified question/assertion, c) inputting assertion or question and using evaluation to provide output of the concepts related to the proposition, d) considering through presentation a conclusion drawn to the Human Subject and for further consideration, e) managing personal behavior by determining associated concepts to find support or conflict in question/assertion consistency and calculating benefits/risks of having a certain stance on a topic, g) receiving confidence and pre-criticized knowledge, wherein the knowledge which needs to be logically separated for query capability and assimilation, h) determining from a feedback response whether the response is accepted or if feedback is not accepted then check and evaluate reasons that were provided along with the non-acceptance/appeal.
These techniques are not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the courts involving methods of organizing human activity such as considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018), filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
wherein Linguistic Construction (LC) interprets raw question/assertion input from the Human Subject (HS) to produce a logical separation of linguistic syntax: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of interpreting raw question/assertion observed from the Human Subject and mentally separating linguistic syntax.
wherein Concept Discovery (CD) receives points of interest within the Clarified Question/Assertion (CQ/A) and derives associated concepts by leveraging CKR: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of mentally deriving associated concepts of observed points of interest within the Clarified Question/Assertion by observing/evaluating the Central Knowledge Retention technique.
wherein Concept Prioritization (CP) receives relevant concepts and orders them in logical tiers that represent specificity and generality: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of mentally ordering observed relevant concepts in logical tiers of specificity and generality.
wherein Response Separation Logic (RSL) leverage the LC to understand the question and supplemental query data and associate a relevant and valid response with the initial request thereby accomplishing the objective of SC; wherein the LC is optimized during the output phase to amend the original Question/Assertion to include the supplemental information received by the SC: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of performing Response Separation Logic technique by leveraging the Linguistic Construction technique using judgement to understand the question and supplemental query data and associate a relevant and valid response with the initial request thereby accomplishing the objective of Survey Clarification technique, wherein using judgement to optimize the Linguistic Construction technique during the observed output phase to amend with aid of pen and paper the original Question/Assertion to include the supplemental information observed from the Survey Clarification technique.
wherein Concept Compatibility Detection (CCD) compares conceptual derivatives from the original Question/Assertion to ascertain the logical compatibility result: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of comparing concepts from the original Question/Assertion to determine logical compatibility.
wherein Benefit/Risk Calculator (BRD) receives the compatibility results and weighs the benefits and risks to form a uniform decision that encompasses the gradients of variables implicit in the concept makeup: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship organizing the compatibility results, weighing the benefits and risk via mathematical correlation to form a uniform decision encompassing gradients of variables implicit in the concept makeup similar to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv).
wherein Concept Interaction (CI) assigns attributes that pertain to concepts to parts of the information collected from the HS via Survey Clarification (SC): These limitations recite a mentally performable process labeled as Concept Interaction technique using evaluating information collected from the Human Subject and assigning attributes to concepts of portions of the evaluated information collected via referencing Survey Clarification (SC) technique.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim recite, inter alia:
A computer security system based upon artificial intelligence, the computer system comprising: a memory configured to store programmed instructions, a processor couple to the memory and configured to execute the programmed instructions, and at least one database, wherein the system is a computer implemented system being Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM)…the system further comprising: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely amounts to instructions to apply the underlying abstract idea of performing Lexical Objectivity Mining using generic computer equipment and machinery implementing logic of the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
f) Central Knowledge Retention (CKR), a main database for referencing knowledge of and for the LOM system: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception of performed the label technique of central knowledge retention to the field of use or technological environment comprising a main database for referencing knowledge of and for the LOM system. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
i) Managed Artificially Intelligent Services Provider (MAISP), which runs an internet cloud instance of the LOM system with a master instance of the CKR, and connects LOM to Front End Services, Back End Services, Third Party Application Dependencies, Information Sources, and the an internet cloud: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of use or technological environment comprising a Managed Artificially Intelligent Services Provider (MAISP), which runs an internet cloud instance of LOM with a master instance of the CKR, and connects LOM to Front End Services, Back End Services, Third Party Application Dependencies, Information Sources, and the MNSP Cloud. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Thus, the addition elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 92
Step 1: a machine per claim 91.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as recited in claim 91.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein Front End Services include Artificially Intelligent Personal Assistants, Communication Applications and Protocols, Home Automation and Medical Applications, wherein Back End Services include online shopping, online transportation, Medical Prescription ordering, wherein Front End and Back End Services interact with LOM via a documented API infrastructure, which enables standardization of information transfers and protocols, wherein LOM retrieves knowledge from external Information Sources via the Automated Research Mechanism (ARM): These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of use or technological environment wherein Front End Services include Artificially Intelligent Personal Assistants, Communication Applications and Protocols, Home Automation and Medical Applications, wherein Back End Services include online shopping, online transportation, Medical Prescription ordering, wherein Front End and Back End Services interact with LOM via a documented API infrastructure, which enables standardization of information transfers and protocols, wherein LOM retrieves knowledge from external Information Sources via the Automated Research Mechanism (ARM). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Thus, the addition elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 94
Step 1: a machine per claim 91.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein inside the IQR, the LC receives the original Question/Assertion; the question is linguistically separated and processes each individual word/phrase at a time leveraging the CKR, considers potential options considering the ambiguity of the word/phrase”: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of evaluating the Initial Query Reasoning technique comprising the Linguistic Construction technique and observing the original Question/Assertion and determining possible ambiguity of individual word/phrase linguistically separated from the question observing the Central Knowledge Retention technique of observing individual word/phrase at a time.
Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such the claims is patent ineligible.
Claim 95
Step 1: a machine per claim 91.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein Survey Clarification (SC) receives input from IQR, wherein the input contains series of Requested Clarifications that are to be answered by the HS for an objective answer to the original Question/Assertion to be reached, wherein provided response to the requests are forwarded to Response Separation Logic (RSL), which correlates the responses with the requests: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of evaluating with aid of pen and paper the Survey Clarification technique observing from Initial Query Reasoning a series of Requested Clarifications to be answered by Human Subject for an objective answer to the observed original Question/Assertion to be reached and using judgement by following Response Separation Logic technique to correlate responses with the clarification request.
wherein in parallel to the Requested Clarification being processed, Clarification Linguistic Association is provided to LC, wherein the Association contains the internal relationship between Requested Clarifications and the language structure, which enables the RSL to amend the original Question/Assertion whereby outputs the Clarified Question: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with aid of pen and paper defined by rules such that in parallel to considering the Request Clarification a Clarification Linguistic Association is notated using the Linguistic Construction technique that contains relationship between Requested Clarification and the observed language structure, and using judgement to execute Response Separation Logic by determining amendments to the original Question/Assertion resulting in the Clarified Question.
Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such the claims is patent ineligible.
Claims 105-106 and 108-109
Step 1: These claims are directed to “A method…the method comprising:”; therefore, these claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. The preamble’s recitation of “for securing computer systems using artificial intelligence within a Lexical Objectivity Mining (LOM) system” is interpreted as merely stating an intended use and would have no effect on the body of the claim if removed. Thus said preamble recitation is not afforded patentable weight for the purpose of examination. See MPEP 2111.02.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 105-06 and 108-109 recite the substantially the same abstract ideas as claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively. In addition, claim 105 recites, inter alia:
constructing context by combining metadata from AC and evidence from the Human Subject (HS) for critical thinking using Context Construction (CC); comparing pre-criticized and post-criticized decisions with Decision Comparison (DC); assign attributes to concepts and parts of collected information from the Human Subject (HS) using Concept Interaction (CI): These limitations recite mentally performable processes with aid of pen and paper of using judgement to construct context by combining observed metadata from Assertion Construction technique and observed evidence from the Human Subject for critical thinking using Context Construction technique, using judgement to compare pre-criticized and post-criticized decisions with Decision Comparison technique, and using judgement with aid of pen and paper to assign attributes to concepts and parts of collected information observed from the Human Subject using Concept Interaction technique.
With the exception of the additional abstract ideas recited by claim 105, the analysis at this step for claims 105-06 and 108-109 substantially mirrors that of claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 105-06 and 108-109 recite the substantially the same additional elements as claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively. The only substantive difference between claims 105-106 and 108-109 and claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively, for Step 2A Prong 2 analysis is that claims 105-106 and 108-109 are directed to “A method…the method comprising:”. With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 105-106 and 108-109 substantially mirrors that of claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively, wherein the additional elements do not meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 analysis do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception for claims 105-106 and 108-109. The only substantive difference between claims 105-106 and 108-109 and claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively, is that claims 105-106 and 108-109 are directed to “A method…the method comprising:”. With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 105-106 and 108-109 substantially mirrors that of claims 91-92 and 94-95, respectively, wherein the addition elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 110
Step 1: a process per claim 105.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein for Assertion Construction: breaking down the Clarified Question/Assertion (CQ/A) into Points of Interest by LC; deriving associated concepts using CD; ordering concepts into tiers by CP; transferring the top tier to HM as modular input; processing Points of Interest through CI; returning final outputs from HM to AC after testing compatibility and weighing benefits/risks: These limitations recite a mentally performable process labeled as an Assertion Construction technique comprising using judgement to break the observed Clarified Question/Assertion down into points of interest using Linguistic Construction technique, evaluating associated concepts into logical tiers using Concept Discovery technique, ordering the concepts by most general concepts at a top tier and increasing specific concepts allocated to lower tiers by using Concept Interaction technique, referencing indexed information to assign attributes to the points of interest, evaluating derived concepts for compatibility and performing weighing of benefits/risks of a stance to be output with aid of pen and paper as final outputs from the Hierarchical Mapping technique and the Assertion Construction technique.
Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such the claims is patent ineligible.
No Art Rejection
Regarding claims 91-92, 94-95, 105-106, and 108-110, Examiner would like to note that there is currently no prior art rejection for these claims. When there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it is not proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See e.g., MPEP 2173.06. Because the Examiner was unable to ascertain the metes and bounds (i.e., the scope) of the invention as claimed, the Examiner was unable to conduct a specific prior art search on the subject matter of these claims since to do so would of necessity required speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter, In re Steele, 308 f .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and /n re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks regarding the claim objections set forth in the Office Action filed 3/3/2025 are persuasive and consequently the said claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth above.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks traversing the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant provides conclusionary arguments on page 12 of the Remarks filed 6/3/2025, alleging that claim 91 amendments introduced elements are more than an Abstract idea and are significantly more than the judicial exception as the linguistic elements cannot be performed in the human mind and are distinct steps that are a practical application for a computer security system based upon artificial intelligence. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Examiner counters that per the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth above, all of the newly amended limitations of Claim 91 recite/describe abstract ideas represented by mentally performable processes and mathematical relationships. Applicant does not substantially argue the claim 91 elements that were not newly amended which recite/describe abstract ideas represented by mental processes as well as certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner asserts that claim 91 is directed to a judicial exception because the abstract ideas identified in the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis are not integrated into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 analysis because the only additional elements of claim 91 include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Thus, the addition elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, provide an inventive concept, nor otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself per MPEP 2106.05.
Secondly, Examiner counters that the various specific steps of linguistic construction in claim 91 are only specific insofar as the steps are recited as proper nouns, and the BRI of claim elements such as “Initial Query Reasoning (IQR)”, “Linguistic Construction (LC)”, “Response Separation Logic (RSL)”, etc. encompass the interpretation that these are just labels for functional techniques which per the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis describe and thus recite abstract ideas comprising the judicial exception.
Thirdly, Applicant’s only argues independent claim 91 as the basis for establishing subject matter eligibility and do not provide any arguments regarding the abstract ideas recited by various dependent claims as set forth in Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of the dependent claims. Per MPEP 2106.07 “The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in an application. For example, even if an independent claim is determined to be ineligible, the dependent claims may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in the application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein.” (underlining added for emphasis). Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not patent eligible as the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of dependent claims that add to the judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in their respective independent claim as detailed in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis of the dependent claims. Thus, the claimed invention including the dependent claims is patent ineligible as detailed the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm ET.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. 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.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143