DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 has been entered.
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
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The applicant has amended claim 17 in response to the rejection set forth in the last action under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The amendment sufficiently overcomes the rejection. The rejection to claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended the independent claims in response to the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant argues that the present claims are now eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as described in detail below.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the operations of the claims are not mere observations or judgements and the claim recites the actual execution of a reinforcement learning agent and monitoring system, interaction with a transaction system across multiple actions, and an operational reconfiguration of the monitoring system. The applicant argues that such steps are not practically performable in the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are limitations in the independent claim which are recitations of mental processes, as well as limitations which have been found to be additional elements. The execution of a reinforcement learning agent and of a monitoring system are claimed; however, these limitations amount to using generically-recited computing components to enable the performance of tasks which exist otherwise or may be performed by a human being. For example, a human being may (and does) perform actions in a monitored transaction system and a monitoring system may entail a human being observing transactional data against a set of deterministic rules. Stating that these elements are performed by a computer or using generic computing components amounts to the use of computers or other machinery as tools to perform existing processes. The interaction with a transaction system across multiple actions is claimed in such a way that the limitation only requires “apply(ing) each of the plurality of scenarios to the set of actions performed by the RL agent” and “generate(ing) an alert status”. Such tasks may be performed practically in the human mind- a human being is more than capable of making an evaluation of RL agent actions with respect to a scenario comprising deterministic rules in order to make a judgement as to whether non-permitted activity has occurred or not. Further, a human being is capable of generating an alert status- this can be performed mentally by keeping track of corresponding operations in the human memory or by using assistive aids such as pen and paper to keep track of the corresponding status. The way by which the monitoring system is claimed (computer implemented, applying rules to evaluate against actions, making judgements for alert statuses) only limits the implementation to being on a computing environment, wherein the bounds of the monitoring system capabilities are not limited beyond human capacity. Accordingly, the way by which the deterministic rules are applied to the actions by the RL agent amount to merely the comparison and evaluation of data, which is a mental process. The operational reconfiguring of the monitoring system, as argued by the applicant, is a limitation which is not claimed. The claim requires that a signal to the monitoring system is provided and further recites the idea of a desired outcome due to the signal, while failing to particularly link how the signaling yields the decommissioning of the scenario. The “signaling to the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions” is claimed so generically that it encompasses that which is possible by way of human using assistive aids. The “decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system” is interpreted as mere instructions to apply the exception to achieve the desired outcome. Doing such a task “automatically” is the invocation of generic computing components to perform a task which may otherwise be performed by a human being. There is an omission in the claim to link how the signal to the monitoring system yields the recited result and further an omission as to what the signal entails and/or how it functionally operates. In other words, the particular mechanism by which the operational reconfiguration occurs is not positively recited in the claimed language so as to provide a particular solution to a problem.
The applicant further argues that the examiner has failed to evaluate the claim 1 as a whole and an ordered combination because the examiner’s analogy to a person writing down an alert or the word “Stop” omits the claimed computerized operations.
As set forth in this action, and further described above, the claim does recite steps which may be construed as a mental process, except for the recitation of generic computing components to perform the task. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”. Accordingly, simply including that a mental process is computer-implemented does not exclude the limitation(s) from being considered to recite a mental process. Even when evaluating the claim as a whole, the claim is largely rooted in steps which may be considered mental process, using generically recited computing components to enable the mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the applicant argues that any recited abstract ideas are effectively integrated in a practical application that improves transaction-monitoring technology. The applicant argues that there exists a technical problem arising when a monitoring system deploys scenarios that repeatedly generate alerts for the same activities whereby redundant scenarios contribute minimal detection power while continuing to consume processor cycles and memory to generate unnecessary alerts, and require downstream storage, retrieval, manipulation, and evaluation of such alerts. Applicant further argues that the disclosed technical solution is recited in claim 1 because, allegedly, the claimed decommissioning by signaling the monitoring system changes the monitoring system’s future operation by removing the redundant scenario from active evaluation. The applicant further argues that the reconfiguration of the monitoring system reduces wasted processor cycles, memory use, eliminates unnecessary alerts and downstream alert-processing operations, and permits the monitoring system to monitor the same activity with similar detection power while using fewer computing resources.
It is not apparent in the claim what the transaction-monitoring technology is characterized by such that the claim sets forth any apparent improvement to the transaction-monitoring technology. The monitoring system is merely claimed as 1) being computer-implemented, 2) being used to monitor transaction systems by way of scenarios which are deterministic rules, 3) being executed to apply the rules to the actions, 4) used for the generation of alert statuses, and 5) being receptive to feedback signals to discontinue evaluations for a scenario. While the specification sets for an alleged improvement in reducing required compute resources, it is not readily apparent by the claims what compute resources are required and used by the transaction monitoring system such that decommissioning scenarios would reflect the alleged improvement of using fewer resources. Additionally, the mechanism by which decommissioning scenarios occurs is not positively recited in the claims so as to demonstrate a particular solution to the problem, though is described in the specification in at least ¶38. For example, it may be beneficial to particularly claim the link between the signal to the monitoring system and how the signal is meaningfully applied so as to yield decommissioned scenarios. Furthermore, the monitoring system’s future operation is not positively recited to operate in a meaningful way after the decommissioning of the scenarios such that the alleged improvement would be reflected by the claim. For example, once the decommissioning is applied to the monitoring system, it may be beneficial to claim that the monitoring system continues to operate in a meaningful capacity that demonstrates the utilization of fewer compute resources.
Applicant makes many references to the specification when arguing the improvements to the monitoring system. Applicant further argues that a claim integrates an exception into a practical application where the claimed combination improves the functioning of a computer or other technology, and further notes that the eligibility analysis must consider the claim as a whole in light of the technical explanation provided in the specification.
However, the features that yield such alleged improvements are not reflected in the claims. Per MPEP 2111.01, "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.". Accordingly, while the claims are read in light of the specification, the claim itself must be the mechanism by which the alleged improvement is reflected and the features noted in the specification cannot be improperly imported into the claims. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the decommissioning of the first scenario by the monitoring system may also encompass the decommissioning of all scenarios of the monitoring system because the claim does not limit the operation of the monitoring system after the decommissioning step. In such an embodiment the monitoring system would effectively be useless in detecting non-permitted activity. This embodiment would not reflect the alleged improvement to the transaction monitoring system. Other embodiments may likewise present reduced effectiveness of the monitoring system and this is merely provided as an example for explanation purposes.
Examiner suggests consideration to multiple areas of the specification for incorporation to the claims to demonstrate the alleged improvement. First, a baseline needs to be established as to the computing resources required by the monitoring system. The claims presently recite the monitoring system as being computer implemented but does not describe what type(s) of computational resources are utilized by the monitoring system. (Claims 8 and 15 recite the recording of alert statuses but does not specify what recording entails and likewise claim 1 recites the generation of alerts without setting forth what the generation entails).The specification describes the monitoring system as requiring: processor cycles and memory utilization for evaluation purposes; data storage for the cumulative alerts maintained by the monitoring system; and storage, retrieval, and further evaluation capacity for downstream computer operations. See ¶38 and in at least ¶24 and ¶121, the alert statuses generated by the monitoring system are described as being stored and retrieved from a database or other data structure. Second, a particular solution should be identified so as to demonstrate how the scenarios are effectively decommissioned. The claim presently recites the signaling to decommission followed by the decommissioning but fails to describe how the signal (or instruction per claim 15) yields the outcome- that is how is the signal is meaningfully used to modify or reconfigure the operation of the monitoring system to arrive at the monitoring system without the first scenario. The mere transmission and reception of signals/instructions alone in the computing system is not enough to transform the claim to eligible subject matter. In the specification, ¶36 sets forth multiple examples of how the scenario is decommissioned, noting a toggle, removal, deletion, further storage, etc., which may provide more particularity to the specifics of how the claim solves the problem. Lastly, the claim may be altered to reflect that the reconfigured monitoring system is operating in a capacity that demonstrates the alleged improvement. For example, ¶38 sets forth that removal of unnecessary evaluations yields lower processing cycles and memory utilization, the alerts not being generated removes the need for storage capacity of the alert data, and subsequent computer operations are no longer required with reduced alerts. Such exemplary features may be positively recited in the claim to reflect the alleged improvement, for example by including features demonstrating that the monitoring system continues to operate in a meaningful capacity with reduced computational requirements (continuing evaluating others of the plurality of scenarios for non-permitted activity while not evaluating actions with the first scenario or producing alerts for the first scenario). Claim 20 appears to more clearly imply improvement with the limitation “wherein the monitoring system produces no further alerts under the first scenario following execution of the instruction.” ; however the present corresponding independent claim does not positively recite the generation of alerts by the monitoring system prior to the decommissioning so as to demonstrate functionally different operations by the monitoring system before and after decommissioning. Please note any suggestions made by the examiner should be considered with what is supported by the originally filed disclosure, should any further amendments be made in light of the suggestions.
Applicant argues under step 2B that the Office Action has failed to provide factual support that the ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional and describes the ordered combination as: using transaction activity generated by a reinforcement learning agent attempting to evade the monitoring scenarios to produce scenario-specific triggering data, determines an extent of overlap between alerts of distinct monitoring scenarios, identifies deployed scenarios as redundant based on that measured behavior, and automatically decommissions that scenario from future transaction evaluation.
The ordered combination presented by the applicant includes both additional elements as well as limitations identified as judicial exceptions. In step 2B, the evaluation pertains to the search for an inventive concept by evaluation of additional elements, alone and in combination. (See MPEP 2106.05(I) “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” And MPEP 2106.05(II) “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).”). The ordered combination of the abstract idea is not relevant in this consideration because the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(I) “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. [[…]] Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” The additional elements of the claims have been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated in the rejection of this action. By and large, the additional elements amount to the use of generic computing components as tools by which to enable the performance of a mental process in a computing environment. The mechanisms by which the computing components interact with one another (as the combination of additional elements) contribute nominally to the claim, whereby the claim is largely rooted in a process which may be construed as mental process except for the generic recitation of computing components to apply the judicial exception or to employ existing tasks. Alternatively, the signaling to the monitoring system may be considered the insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting data over a network which has been found by the courts to be a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed generically such as in the claim. The courts have found that such classified limitations are both considered not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: “i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));”). The ordered combination of such additional elements of using generic computing components and generic computing functions to enable the mental process are similar to that described in the example of how courts conduct the search for an inventive concept in MPEP 2106.05(B) Alice Corp. (“The Court considered the additional elements "as an ordered combination," and determined that "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’" and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer." 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972).”). The elements together do not interact in such a way that presents or indicates any further insights beyond what is gained by considering the elements separately. Any pertinent factual support for these elements is given by the court’s findings as stated above.
The applicant further argues that the automatic decommissioning step is non- insignificant post solution activity, as alleged, because it is the technical implementation that produces the disclosed improvement.
Transmitting data over a network (signaling a monitoring system to do a task) is insignificant extra solution activity which has been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity by the courts. The claim fails to recite the steps of the technical implementation that produces the disclosed improvement, as described in the arguments above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The automatic decommissioning is only described in the claim as being done by signaling a monitoring system. Any other technical mechanisms that are leveraged to achieve this outcome are not claimed and therefore this element is only being analyzed by what is required by the claim.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the rejection set forth in the previous action is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation that treats materially different concepts as interchangeable. Applicant further amends the claims to clarify meaning of the limitations argued within the claims and argues that the prior art of record does not disclose all the features of the amended claims.
In light of the amendments made to the claims, which modify the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation, the arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of the independent claims. By incorporation, the dependent claims are also found to not be disclosed or reasonably suggested by the prior art of record. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
wherein each scenario comprises a deterministic rule or model configured to evaluate actions in the transaction system to detect a form of non-permitted activity: This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating actions utilizing a deterministic rule or model to make judgements as to if non-permitted activity has occurred. This task may be performed using the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
apply each of the plurality of scenarios to the set of actions performed by the reinforcement learning agent and, for each action, generate an alert status for each scenario that indicates whether the action triggered the scenario; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and making a judgement of alerts triggered by the reinforcement learning agent attempting to evade scenarios. Here, the term “apply” is being interpreted as to “compare”. The generation of the alert status is not claimed in such a way that is beyond human capacity to remember judgements or to keep record on paper. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, such as using pen and paper to write alert information acquired from the observations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining an extent of overlap between first alerts of a first scenario of the monitoring system and second alerts of a second scenario of the monitoring system by identifying and counting overlapping occurrences in which the first scenario and the second scenario are both triggered by the same action or by activity occurring within corresponding time ranges The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating first alerts and second alerts against one another to make a judgment as to how much the alerts overlap. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, counting is a mathematical calculation and therefore this claim also recites the abstract ideal of mathematical concepts.
identifying the first scenario to be redundant based on the extent of overlap represented by the identified and counted overlapping occurrences; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to if the first scenario is redundant according to the evaluation of the overlap. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
in response to identifying the first scenario to be redundant, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to if the first scenario is redundant. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Examiner notes that the method is noted to be a computer-implemented method. Despite the note in the specification [0020] that no action described or claimed herein is performed in the human mind, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed by humans and a mental process performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
executing a reinforcement learning agent to perform a set of actions in a transaction system in an attempt to evade a plurality of scenarios of a monitoring system that monitors the transaction system;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes the use of a reinforcement learning agent as a computing tool functioning in its normal capacity to perform an existing process. The limitation is further identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the application of the RL agent to a transaction system and corresponding monitoring system for the transaction system.
execute the monitoring system to – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to enable the performance of the recited mental process.
automatically decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the invocation of generic computing components to perform a task automatically, wherein the task is one, except for the recitation of using a computer to do so, may be performed by a human being as a mental process. For example, the decommissioning of the scenario would entail that further evaluations for that scenario are not considered in the application of scenarios to actions. Doing so by way of a computer is the mere automation of steps which may be construed as mental process, as given above.
by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario. –wherein the task of signaling is the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of receiving and transmitting data over a network.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception nor generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the way in which the additional elements work together in conjunction with the recited judicial exceptions does not pose meaningful limits on the claim. Furthermore any improvements to technology disclosed per the specification are not effectively reflected by the claimed language. While the claim does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, the claim does need to contain the elements of the invention with reflect the improvement.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario was identified as being the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of sending/receiving data over a network. The courts have found that this computer functionality is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in the claims, that would not provide an inventive concept or significantly more to the recited judicial exception. The courts have found the additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
Other additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) , as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the exception to a particular field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The additional elements do not demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, do not include the use of a particular machine that is uniquely characterized, and do not describe any noted insignificant extra solution activity beyond what the courts have established as well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-14 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
apply a plurality of scenarios to actions performed by a reinforcement learning agent in a transaction system, wherein each scenario is configured to evaluate actions in the transaction system according to respective conditions to detect a form of non-permitted activity: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating and making a judgement of alerts triggered by the reinforcement learning agent according to conditions. Here, the term “apply” is being interpreted as to “compare”. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
for each action performed by the reinforcement learning agent, generate an alert status for each scenario of the plurality of scenarios that indicates whether the action triggered the scenario: This limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing evaluations and judgements so as to create an alert status according to the evaluation that an action triggered a scenario. This task may be performed using the human mind whereby a human is capable of deriving judgement of alert statuses. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
record the alert status for each scenario The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail keeping a record of the alert statuses, whereby this can be done in the human mind using memory and recollection or can be done using pen and paper as assistive aids so as to write down the alert status. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine respective extents of overlap among alerts of the plurality of scenarios by identifying and counting overlapping occurrences in which alerts of two or more scenarios of the plurality of scenarios are triggered by the same action or by actively occurring within corresponding time ranges; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making evaluations as to how much different alerts overlap according to the identification and counting of specified criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the counting of the overlapping occurrences is the recitation of a mathematical calculation and therefore the claim also recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
identify one or more scenarios of the plurality of scenarios as redundant scenarios based on the extent of overlap represented by the identified and counter overlapping occurrences; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment according to the evaluation of the overlap. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Despite the note in the specification [0020] that no action described or claimed herein is performed in the human mind, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed by humans and a mental process performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a processor;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes the use of a generic computing component as a tool to perform an existing process.
a memory operably connected to the processor; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes the use of a generic computing component as a tool to perform an existing process.
a non-transitory computer-readable medium operably connected to the processor and memory and storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by at least the processor of the computing system cause the computing system to: - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes the use of a reinforcement learning agent as a computing tool functioning in its normal capacity to perform an existing process.
execute a monitoring system to – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to enable the performance of the recited mental process.
automatically decommission one or more of the redundant scenarios in the monitoring system. – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the invocation of generic computing components to perform a task automatically, wherein the task is one, except for the recitation of using a computer to do so, may be performed by a human being as a mental process. For example, the decommissioning of the scenario would entail that further evaluations for that scenario are not considered in the application of scenarios to actions. Doing so by way of a computer is the mere automation of steps which may be construed as mental process, as given above.
by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the one or more redundant scenarios that are decommissioned –wherein the task of signaling is the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of receiving and transmitting data over a network.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) nor generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the way in which the additional elements work together in conjunction with the recited judicial exceptions does not pose meaningful limits on the claim. Furthermore any improvements to technology disclosed per the specification are not effectively reflected by the claimed language. While the claim does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, the claim does need to contain the elements of the invention with reflect the improvement.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the one or more redundant scenarios that are decommissioned was identified as being the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of sending/receiving data over a network. The courts have found that this computer functionality is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in the claims, that would not provide an inventive concept or significantly more to the recited judicial exception. The courts have found the additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
Other additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) , as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the exception to a particular field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The additional elements do not demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, do not include the use of a particular machine that is uniquely characterized, and do not describe any noted insignificant extra solution activity beyond what the courts have established as well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
apply a plurality of scenarios to actions performed by a reinforcement learning agent in a transaction system, wherein each scenario is configured to evaluate actions in the transaction system according to respective conditions to detect a form of non-permitted activity; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating and making a judgement of alerts triggered by the reinforcement learning agent according to conditions. Here, the term “apply” is being interpreted as to “compare”. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
for each action performed by the reinforcement learning agent, generate a respective alert status for each scenario of the plurality of scenarios, each respective alert status indicating whether the action triggered the corresponding scenario; This limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing evaluations and judgements so as to create an alert status according to the evaluation that an action triggered a scenario. This task may be performed using the human mind whereby a human is capable of deriving judgement of alert statuses. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
record the respective alert statuses for the plurality of scenarios; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail keeping a record of the alert statuses, whereby this can be done in the human mind using memory and recollection or can be done using pen and paper as assistive aids so as to write down the alert status. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine a measure of alert correlation between a first scenario and a second scenario of the plurality of scenarios by identifying and counting cotriggering occurrences in which alerts are triggered under both the first scenario and the second scenario by the same action or activity; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first and second scenario to determine a correlation measure. This task may be performed using the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of counting occurrences is a mathematical calculation and therefore the claim further includes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
identify the first scenario to be redundant based on the measure of alert correlation; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to if a scenario is redundant according to the measure of correlation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
in response to identifying the first scenario to be redundant The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to if the first scenario is redundant. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Despite the note in the specification [0020] that no action described or claimed herein is performed in the human mind, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed by humans and a mental process performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
execute a monitoring system to -This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to enable the performance of the recited mental process.
automatically decommission the first scenario in the monitoring system – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the invocation of generic computing components to perform a task automatically, wherein the task is one, except for the recitation of using a computer to do so, may be performed by a human being as a mental process. For example, the decommissioning of the scenario would entail that further evaluations for that scenario are not considered in the application of scenarios to actions. Doing so by way of a computer is the mere automation of steps which may be construed as mental process, as given above.
by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario. - wherein the task of signaling is the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of receiving and transmitting data over a network.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the way in which the additional elements work together in conjunction with the recited judicial exceptions does not pose meaningful limits on the claim. Furthermore any improvements to technology disclosed per the specification are not effectively reflected by the claimed language. While the claim does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, the claim does need to contain the elements of the invention with reflect the improvement.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario. was identified as being the recitation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of sending/receiving data over a network. The courts have found that this computer functionality is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claims that would not provide an inventive concept or significantly more to the recited judicial exception. The courts have found the Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The additional elements do not demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, do not include the use of a particular machine that is uniquely characterized, and do not describe any noted insignificant extra solution activity beyond what the courts have established as well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites wherein determining the extent of overlap further comprises counting a number of times that one of the first alerts occurs at a time step in which one of the second alerts occurs, which can reasonably be read to entail observing the number of times one of the first alerts occurs at a step in which the second alerts occur. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim limitation includes the mathematical calculation of counting which is an addition of numbers. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites determining that the first scenario is weaker than the second scenario based on a comparison of a first ratio of overlapping occurrences of alerts to overall alerts for the first scenario to a second ratio of overlapping occurrences of alerts to overall alerts of the second scenario; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating and comparing two ratios of overlapping alerts. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation includes the recitation of comparing ratios, this claim additionally includes the recitation of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Claim 3 further recites the limitation selecting the first scenario for decommissioning based on the determination that the first scenario is weaker than the second scenario which can be reasonably red to entail using the insights to make a judgement (selecting) for the decommissioning of the first scenario. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 does not include any additional recitations of judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation further comprising operating the reinforcement learning agent in a simulation of the transaction system that is monitored by the monitoring system, wherein the reinforcement learning agent attempts to evade the plurality of scenarios in the simulation. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of a simulation of a monitored system. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation further invokes the use of generic computing components as a simulation of a monitoring system as a tool to perform an existing task. The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and invoking generic computing components to perform existing tasks in conjunction with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and merely invoking the use of computers as tool to perform existing functionality are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites the judicial exception of in response to identifying the first scenario to be redundant; which can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement based on the evaluation of redundancy. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation displaying a recommendation to decommission the first scenario in a user interface;, the limitation presenting user-selectable elements to accept the decommissioning of the first scenario in the user interface; and and the limitation accepting a user selection of an element of the user-selectable elements to accept the decommissioning of the first scenario through the user interface. These three limitations have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitations invoke the use of computers functioning in their normal capacity to perform existing processes such as displaying data in a user interface, presenting user-selectable elements in a user interface, and acquiring data from a user interface. The limitation wherein the decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system is performed in response to the user selection has also been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) but because the limitation amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it”. Specifically, the limitation recites the idea of an outcome but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The courts have ruled using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Per the additional elements of the claim, the courts have found that limitations that amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites generating information about an effect of decommissioning the first scenario; and which can be reasonably read to entail observing the effect of decommissioning the first scenario and forming an opinion as information. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation presenting the information about the effect of decommissioning in the user interface. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely invokes the use of computers functioning in their normal capacity to display data to a user interface. The courts have ruled that using computers as a tool to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 further recites in response to the identifying the first scenario to be redundant which can be read to entail making a judgement as to the redundancy of the first scenario. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein automatically decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system further comprises, in response to the identifying the first scenario to be redundant, automatically instructing the monitoring system to discontinue analyzing actions in a monitored system to determine whether the actions trigger the first scenario. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely recites “apply it” by providing the idea of a solution or outcome without particularly providing the details on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. The aspect of the limitation of instructing the monitoring system is specified at a high level of generality that encompasses the transmission and reception of data over a network, as insignificant extra solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))). The courts have ruled merely reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, instructing the monitoring system to encompasses transmitting an instruction over a network to a monitoring system. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim. The courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the recited exception which has been found to be well understood routine and conventional is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the recited exception. Further, the courts have found that limitations that amount to reciting the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites count, for a first scenario and a second scenario selected from the plurality of scenarios, a number of times that an alert of the first scenario occurs in a time range in which an alert of the second scenario occurs. which can be reasonably ready to entail making an evaluation of the number of times that a first scenario alert occurs in the same time range as a second scenario alert occurs. This task may be performed using the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, counting is a mathematical calculation, whereby the claim further includes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 further recites the additional element wherein the instructions to determine the respective extents of overlap further cause the computing system to which amounts to the invocation of generic computers as a means by which to apply the judicial exception (Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))). The courts have found that using generic computing components to perform the judicial exception in a computing environment are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional element of the claim has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein the courts have found that including instructions to implement the judicial exception in a computing environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. When viewed as a whole, the claim is merely using computers as a means by which to apply the judicial exception and does not recite the application in an inventive capacity.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites select a first scenario and a second scenario from the plurality of scenarios; which can reasonably read to entail making a judgement of the scenarios of interest. The claim further recites determine that the first scenario is weaker than the second scenario based on a comparison of a first ratio of overlapping occurrences of alerts to overall alerts for the first scenario to a second ratio of overlapping occurrences of alerts to overall alerts for the second scenario; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating and comparing two ratios of overlapping alerts. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation includes the recitation of comparing ratios, this claim additionally includes the recitation of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Claim 10 further recites the limitation select the first scenario for decommissioning based on the determination that the first scenario is weaker than the second scenario which can be reasonably red to entail using the insights to make a judgement (selecting) for the decommissioning of the first scenario. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to operate the reinforcement learning agent in a simulation of the transaction system that is monitored by the monitoring system, wherein the reinforcement learning agent attempts to evade the plurality of scenarios in the simulation. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of a simulation of a monitored system. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation further invokes the use of generic computing components as a simulation of a monitoring system as a tool to perform an existing task. The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and invoking generic computing components to perform existing tasks in conjunction with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and merely invoking the use of computers as tool to perform existing functionality are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites select a redundant scenario from the one or more redundant scenarios which entails making an observation and judgment. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation display a recommendation to decommission the selected redundant scenario in a user interface; the limitation present a user-selectable element to accept or reject the decommissioning of the selected redundant scenario in the user interface; and the limitation receive a user selection of the user-selectable element to accept decommissioning of the selected redundant scenario; and,. These limitations have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitations invoke the use of computers functioning in their normal capacity to perform existing processes such as displaying data in a user interface, presenting user-selectable elements in a user interface, and acquiring data from a user interface. The limitation decommission the selected redundant scenario in the monitoring system in response to the acceptance has also been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) but because the limitation amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it”. Specifically, the limitation recites the idea of an outcome but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The courts have ruled using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 recites in response to identifying the one or more scenarios as redundant which entails making a judgement. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation, automatically instruct the monitoring system to discontinue analyzing actions in a monitored system to determine whether the actions trigger the one or more redundant scenarios. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely recites “apply it” by providing the idea of a solution or outcome without particularly providing the details on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. The claim limitation can also be read to encompass insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have ruled merely reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, instructing a monitoring system to do something entails sending and receiving computer instructions over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed generically such as in this claim. The courts have found that limitations that amount to reciting the words “apply it” and appending insignificant extra solution activity which has been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally recites count number of times that one of the first alerts occur in a time range in which one of the second alerts occurs which can reasonably be read to entail observing the number of times one of the first alerts occurs at a step in which the second alerts occur. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim limitation includes the mathematical calculation of counting which is an addition of numbers. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim further recites wherein the instructions to determine an extent of overlap further cause the computer to which entails invoking a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))). The courts have found invoking generic computers as a mechanism by which to employ the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The courts have found that invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool to perform the exception is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the exception itself.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites select a first additional scenario and a second additional scenario from the plurality of scenarios; determine a first ratio of co-triggering occurrences to total alerts triggered under the first additional scenario; determine a second ratio of co-triggering occurrences to total alerts triggered under the second additional scenario; compare the first ratio and the second ratio; identify a weaker scenario from among the first additional scenario and the second additional scenario based at least in part on the first ratio and the second ratio; and select and [[…]] the weaker scenario in the monitoring system which are all tasks which can be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive aids. For example, a human is perfectly capably of making a selection as a judgement, making a determination, comparison, and identification as an evaluation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the determination of a ratio is the determination of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim further recites decommission as a step, whereby the decommissioning is the statement of the intended outcome without any further recitation of details as to how the outcome is accomplished. The limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to the words “apply it” with regard to the exception.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the instructions further cause the computer to operate the reinforcement learning agent in a simulation of the monitored system, wherein the reinforcement learning agent attempts to evade the plurality scenarios in the simulation. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of a simulation of a monitored system. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation further invokes the use of generic computing components as a simulation of a monitoring system as a tool to perform an existing task. The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and invoking generic computing components to perform existing tasks in conjunction with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and merely invoking the use of computers as tool to perform existing functionality are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation display a recommendation to decommission first scenario in a user interface;, the limitation present a user-selectable element to accept the decommissioning of the first scenario in the user interface; and and the limitation accept a user selection of the user-selectable element to accept the decommissioning the first scenario through the user interface,. These three limitations have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitations invoke the use of computers functioning in their normal capacity to perform existing processes such as displaying data in a user interface, presenting user-selectable elements in a user interface, and acquiring data from a user interface. The limitation wherein the decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system is performed in response to the user selection has also been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) but because the limitation amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it”. Specifically, the limitation recites the idea of an outcome but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The courts have ruled using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and merely reciting the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 recites in response to the identifying the first scenario to be redundant, which entails making an evaluation of the redundant scenarios. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein the instructions to decommission the first scenario in the monitoring system further cause the computer to [[…]], automatically instruct the monitoring system to discontinue analyzing actions in a monitored system to determine whether the actions trigger the first scenario, wherein the monitoring system produces no further alerts under the first scenario following execution of the instruction. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely recites “apply it” by providing the idea of a solution or outcome without particularly providing the details on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. The claim further can be read as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of transmitting data over a network. The courts have ruled merely reciting the words “apply it” and appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, instructing the monitoring system encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. The courts have found that limitations that amount to reciting the words “apply it” are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea, nor have they found that appending insignificant extra solution activity which has been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional, to the claim as enough to qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, and 15-20 are allowable over the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose all of the features of the independent claims, including at least for claim 1:
determining an extent of overlap between first alerts of a first scenario of the monitoring system and second alerts of a second scenario of the monitoring system by identifying and counting overlapping occurrences in which the first scenario and the second scenario are both triggered by the same action or by activity occurring within corresponding time ranges;
identifying the first scenario to be redundant based on the extent of overlap represented by the identified and counted overlapping occurrences; and
automatically decommissioning the first scenario in the monitoring system, in response to identifying the first scenario to be redundant, by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario.
And for claim 8:
determine respective extent.§. of overlap among alerts of the plurality of
scenarios by identifying and counting overlapping occurrences in which alerts of two or more scenarios of the plurality of scenarios are triggered by the same action or by activity occurring within corresponding time ranges;.
identify one or more scenarios of the plurality of scenarios as redundant scenarios based on the extent of overlap represented by the identified and counted overlapping occurrences; and
automatically decommission one or more of the redundant scenarios in the monitoring system by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the one or more redundant scenarios that are decommissioned.
And for claim 15:
determine a measure of alert correlation between a first scenario and a second scenario of the plurality of scenarios by identifying and counting cotriggering occurrences in which alerts are triggered under both the first scenario and the second scenario by the same action or activity;
identify the first scenario to be redundant based on the measure of alert correlation; and
automatically decommission the first scenario in the monitoring system, in response to identifying the first scenario to be redundant, by signaling the monitoring system to discontinue evaluating actions with the first scenario.
The dependent claims incorporate such features of their respective independent claim and have been likewise found allowable over the prior art for such incorporation.
No additional prior art was found to cure the deficiencies of the prior art of record to teach all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights