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, see pgs. 7-9, filed 9-11-2025, with respect to 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re pgs. 6-7, applicant argues
PNG
media_image1.png
154
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please see the updated rejection below that the claim still directed to an abstract idea.
In re pgs. 6-7, applicant argues
PNG
media_image2.png
298
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
78
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Anomaly detection itself is an abstract idea; any improvement to an abstract idea is not improvement in technology.
Similar to 101 example 47 claim 2, a claim that only detect anomaly is ineligible.
In re pgs. 7-8, applicant argues
PNG
media_image4.png
272
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The type of data is field of use; the specific output to administrator is insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Similar to 101 example 47 claim 2, a claim that only detect and output anomaly is ineligible. It is the additional use of detected anomaly in a specific way (101 example 47 claim 3) that overcomes the 101 rejection.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high dimensional” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high dimensional” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, how many dimensional is needed to be considered as “high”?
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, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
extract feature amounts of the communication data for learning (feature extraction in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
train a generative model with the feature amounts of the communication data for learning (model training in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
extract first representative points of the feature amounts of the communication data using kernel herding (feature extraction in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper; kernel herding is mathematical concept); and
extract second representative points of the generated data using kernel herding (feature extraction in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper; kernel herding is mathematical concept);
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
A learning device comprising: processing circuitry configured to (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)):
to acquire a plurality of pieces of communication data for learning (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
generate a plurality of pieces of data from the generative model (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
output the first and second representative points extracted to a user terminal via a communication interface so as to present the first and second representative points to a network administrator as data for evaluating a degree of progress of the generative model based upon a difference between the first representative points and the second representative points (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
A learning device comprising: processing circuitry configured to (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)):
to acquire a plurality of pieces of communication data for learning (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is well understood, routine and convention activity of receiving or gathering data as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d));
generate a plurality of pieces of data from the generative model (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is well understood, routine and convention activity of receiving or gathering data as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
output the first and second representative points extracted to a user terminal via a communication interface so as to present the first and second representative points to a network administrator as data for evaluating a degree of progress of the generative model based upon a difference between the first representative points and the second representative points (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is method claim having similar limitation as claims 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitation as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 5 is A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising (amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claim 6: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
6. (New) The learning device of claim 1, wherein the communication data includes traffic session information including a plurality of network packets (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
7. (New) The learning device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform statistical processing on the plurality of network packets to generate the features amounts, the feature amounts being high-dimensional (network statistic and features amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
8. (New) The learning device according to claim 1, wherein generating the plurality of pieces of data from the generative model includes inputting noise and sampling data from an output distribution that corresponds to the noise (inputting noise and sampling data in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper); and
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
to an intermediate layer of the generative model (amounts to applying generic computer component (the generative model), which is just applying the generative model as a tool in a generic manner (MPEP2106.05)(f)),
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
9. (New) The learning device of claim 1, wherein the communication data for learning includes data corresponding to at least two different communication protocols including Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and Real-Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP)(amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
10. (New) The learning device of claim 7. wherein the feature amounts include at least ne of a session duration, a round-trip time (RTT), uplink bytes, or uplink packets (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
11. (New) The learning device of claim I, wherein the kernel herding is performed using a positive-definite kernel (kernel herding is mathematical concept; positive-definite kernel is also mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites no additional element(s):
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
12. (New) The learning device of claim1, to detect a communication anomaly based on an anomaly score (anomaly detection in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper); and
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
wherein the learning device is a component of detection system that further comprises a detection device configured to use the trained generative model (amounts to applying generic computer component (the generative model), which is just applying the generative model as a tool in a generic manner (MPEP2106.05)(f)),
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
13. (New) The learning device of claim 1, to detect a communication anomaly by acquiring an anomaly score corresponding to a detection target communication and detecting the anomaly when the score exceeds a predetermined value (anomaly detection is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper); and
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
wherein the learning device is a component of detection system that further comprises a detection device configured to receive the trained generative model from the learning device; and use the trained generative model (amounts to applying generic computer component (the generative model), which is just applying the generative model as a tool in a generic manner (MPEP2106.05(f)),
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights