DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 11/28/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the “[c]laims do not recite a mental process” (page 13). Specifically, Applicant suggests that the recited limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind and points to the “recording transactions” and “performing the transaction” steps (Id.). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recording step is properly handled as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer). The “performing the transactions” step as manual transaction occur regularly (e.g., a cash transaction verifying that the currency is legitimate).
Applicant further argues that the “[c]laims integrate a practical application” (page 15). However the Applicant does not point to any specific claim language that integrates the claim into a practical application. As shown below, the claim language is recited in such a way that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the “[c]laims recite significantly more” (page 16) because “[t]he Office failed to consider the ordered combination of the claim steps” (page 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely adding “computer-implemented” and “automatically” simply don’t get over the hurdle of “significantly more” because they are essentially stating the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Lastly, Applicant seems to argue that the amendments render the rejections under 101 moot (page 25 et seq.). As shown below, the amended language falls within the mental process grouping or is an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the amended claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed towards the statutory category of a process. Claims 8-14 are directed towards the statutory category of a machine. Claims 15-20 are directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
A… method, comprising (mental process):
recording transactions performed by a reinforcement learning agent during attempts to evade a scenario while the scenario is configured with a current configuration of scenario thresholds… (mental process);
performing the transactions while the scenario is configured with an alternative configuration of the scenario thresholds… (mental process);
determining, based on the first alert states and the second alert states, that the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds more fully satisfies a condition than the current configuration of scenario thresholds based on a change in alerts triggered, wherein the alternative configuration more fully satisfies the condition where a number of alerts in the second alert states for the alternative configuration (i) is other than a number of alerts in the first alert states for the current configuration and (ii) does not exceed a pre-determined cap (mental process); and
… tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration by replacing, in a monitoring system, the current configuration of scenario thresholds with the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds to cause subsequent live transactions in a monitored system to be evaluated under the alternative configuration (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
wherein the transactions are recorded in memory in transaction data structures that associate, for individual transactions, the action taken with first alert states that result under the current configuration (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g));
wherein the transactions are recorded in the memory in transaction data structures that associate, for individual transactions, the action taken with second alert states that result under the alternative configuration (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
automatically (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
wherein the transactions are recorded in memory in transaction data structures that associate, for individual transactions, the action taken with first alert states that result under the current configuration (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer);
wherein the transactions are recorded in the memory in transaction data structures that associate, for individual transactions, the action taken with second alert states that result under the alternative configuration (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer); and
automatically (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
generating a range of values for one or more thresholds of the scenario, wherein the alternative configuration of the scenario thresholds is one combination of the values for the thresholds of the scenario (mental process);
performing the transactions while the scenario is configured with other combinations of the values for the thresholds of the scenario and recording further alerts triggered (mental process);
identifying combinations of values that result in different numbers of alerts (mental process);
splitting the combinations into partitions based on the number of alerts triggered, wherein the alternative configuration of the scenario thresholds defines a transition to one of the partitions (mental process); and
wherein the determining that the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds more fully satisfies a condition than the current configuration of scenario thresholds based on a change in alerts triggered further includes determining that the one of the partitions yields a greatest number of alerts that does not exceed a pre-determined cap on alerts (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
wherein the determining that the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds more fully satisfies a condition than the current configuration of scenario thresholds based on a change in alerts triggered further comprises (mental process):
determining that the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds defines a strongest scenario that produces a cumulative number of alerts per time period not exceeding the pre-determined cap, wherein the predetermined cap is on cumulative alerts per time period (mental process); and
determining that the current configuration of scenario thresholds defines a scenario that either (i) produces a cumulative number of alerts per time period that exceeds the pre-determined cap, or (ii) is weaker than the scenario defined by the alternative configuration of scenario thresholds (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the automatically tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration further comprises weakening the scenario to reduce the ratio of the transactions that result in alerts (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the automatically tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration further comprises strengthening the scenario to increase the ratio of the transactions that result in alerts (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
presenting an indication of strength of the scenario and a number of cumulative alerts for the scenario… , wherein the indication is presented both for configuration of the scenario with the current configuration of scenario thresholds and with the alternative configuration of the scenario thresholds (mental process); and
presenting an indication that the alternative configuration is recommended in the user interface (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
in a user interface (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
presenting in the user interface a user-selectable element to accept the tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
accepting a user selection of the element to accept the tuning, wherein the tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration is performed in response to the user selection (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in a user interface (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
presenting in the user interface a user-selectable element to accept the tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
accepting a user selection of the element to accept the tuning, wherein the tuning the scenario thresholds to the alternative configuration is performed in response to the user selection (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
before recording the transactions, detecting that cumulative alerts per time period in the live transactions are outside of a pre-defined range (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The remaining claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for at least the same reasons as those given above with respect to claims 1-7 with only the addition of generic computer components under step 2A prong 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations that merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong 2. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d). Moreover, the limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Casey R. Garner whose telephone number is 571-272-2467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm, Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexey Shmatov can be reached on 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Casey R. Garner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123