DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on February 24, 2026. The application contains claims 1-23:
Claims 5, 12, 18 are cancelled
Claims 21-23 are newly added
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are amended
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on February 24, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
The claim objections have been updated to reflect the issues that still remain. Please refer below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112 claim rejections have been updated to reflect the issues that still remain. Please see below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. The rejections have been updated and maintained. Please see below for details.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The 35 U.S.C. U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance for the reasons set forth below in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10: “unstructured data sources” should read “the unstructured data sources”.
Claim 1, line 12: “system memory” should read “the system memory”.
Claim 2, line 2: “data and information” should read “the data and information”.
Claim 3, line 2: “the calculating probability” should read “the calculating the probability score”.
Claim 3, line 3: “extracted metadata” should read “the extracted metadata”.
Claim 3, line 3: “one or more indicator” should read “the one or more indicator”.
Claim 8, line 16: “unstructured data sources” should read “the unstructured data sources”.
Claim 8, line 18: “system memory” should read “the system memory”.
Claim 9, line 1: “data and information” should read “the data and information”.
Claim 10, lines 1-2: “the calculating probability” should read “the calculating the probability score”.
Claim 10, line 2: “extracted metadata” should read “the extracted metadata”.
Claim 10, line 3: “one or more indicator” should read “the one or more indicator”.
Claim 15, line 11: “unstructured data sources” should read “the unstructured data sources”.
Claim 15, line 13: “system memory” should read “the system memory”.
Claim 16, line 2: “the calculating probability” should read “the calculating the probability score”.
Claim 16, line 3: “extracted metadata” should read “the extracted metadata”.
Claim 16, lines 3-4: “one or more indicator” should read “the one or more indicator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the documents or files” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the one or more algorithms” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the documents or files” in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the one or more algorithms” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the documents or files” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the one or more algorithms” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 21), a machine (claims 8-11, 13, 14, and 22), and a manufacture (claims 15-17, 19, 20, and 23). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“extracting ..., metadata associated with documents and files ..., the metadata including at least file name, file path, file type, size, owner, or modification history”. This can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, librarians have been extracting file name, file type, file size, etc.. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“preparing, ..., the extracted metadata using one or more of formatting, converting, transforming, grouping, partitioning, normalizing, feature hashing, n-gram extraction, or vectorization operations to generate prepared metadata”. Formatting data, grouping data, or converting data into another form can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“calculating ..., a probability score representing likelihood of existence of the one or more indicators for each document or file based on the prepared metadata”. Per paragraph [0028] of the specification, algorithms used to calculate probability of the existence of indicators may include any other algorithm that can use input data to provide a probability output. For example, looking for a specific keyword in a text document and calculating the probability based on the frequency of the specific keyword occurring in the text document. Because the BRI of this limitation includes any such algorithms that can be practically performed in the human mind, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“combining, ..., probability scores ... to generate an overall probability score for each document or file” recite a simple addition or aggregation that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“segmenting, ..., the documents or files into one or more probability-based segments ... according to the overall probability score”. Grouping data based on how likely the data belongs to a certain category can be practically done by the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“performing sampling and assessment on at least a subset of the segmented documents or files to confirm existence or absence of the one or more indicators”. “sampling and assessment ... to confirm …” involves evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed by the human mind. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as mental processes.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“an information handling system comprising a processor, system memory, and one or more network ports”, “by a metadata extraction component executed by the processor”, “by one or more data preparation components”, “by a results combination component”, “by a segmentation component”, and “a data bus couple to the processor” (claim 8) constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“connecting to one or more networks to one or more unstructured data sources including at least one file system, cloud data store, or network attached storage device” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g);
“stored in unstructured data sources”, “storing the extracted metadata in a metadata data structure in system memory”, and “stored in a segmentation data structure” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“receiving, by an indicator definition component, one or more user-defined indicators” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by an indicator probability calculation component comprising one or more machine learning algorithms executed by the processor”, “generated by the one or more machine learning algorithms”, and “training or retraining at least one of the one or more machine learning algorithms using results of the sampling and assessment” are recited at a high level of generality. Because there are no technical details recited in the claim about how specifically each step is implemented with machine learning technology, these limitations may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer, generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – machine learning or artificial intelligence, and insignificant extra-solution activities.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“connecting to one or more networks to one or more unstructured data sources including at least one file system, cloud data store, or network attached storage device” and “receiving, by an indicator definition component, one or more user-defined indicators” are well understood and routine in the computer related arts. Embodiments for connecting to one or more unstructured data sources involve use of a network to receive and transmit data, see paragraphs [0018]-[0019]. These functions have been found by courts to constitute well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)].
“stored in unstructured data sources”, “storing the extracted metadata in a metadata data structure in system memory”, and “stored in a segmentation data structure” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 each recite an additional element further elaborating on the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168