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 .
Claim status: claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are pending in this Office Action.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
The applicant's amendment filed on 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but it does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 of the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
STEP 1: determining if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject categories and the analysis continues to step 2.
Next is STEP 2:
STEP 2A is to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception and also to see if the claims are directed to “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract idea”. In this case the claims are directed to “A method comprising: at a computing device including one or more processors and memory: analyzing a plurality of components within an enterprise organization infrastructure; identifying, based on the analysis, a plurality of vulnerabilities within the enterprise organization infrastructure, wherein each vulnerability corresponds to at least one component of the plurality of components, and wherein identifying the plurality of vulnerabilities includes, for each component of the plurality of components: receive an expected functionality of a respective component; observe the respective component to determine an actual functionality of the respective component; determine whether the actual functionality of the respective component matches the expected functionality of the respective component, wherein the actual functionality not matching the expected functionality indicates a vulnerability of the respective component; receiving at least one software patch comprising a remediation solution for at least one vulnerability associated with a component of the plurality of components; identifying similarities shared by the plurality of vulnerabilities, wherein a similarity is identified between two or more vulnerabilities of the plurality of vulnerabilities based on the two or more vulnerabilities corresponding to a same component of the plurality of components; grouping vulnerabilities, of the plurality of vulnerabilities, based on the identified similarities; identifying, for each group, a time during which the vulnerabilities can be remediated; generating a remediation schedule comprising the vulnerabilities and the times; determining whether the remediation schedule comprises anomalies that would interrupt scheduled remediations of other vulnerabilities; and based on determining the remediation schedule does not comprise anomalies, remediating the vulnerabilities indicated in the remediation schedule at the time indicated.” This is merely “Mental process” which the courts have found to be an abstract idea. A claim to collecting and comparing known information is a mental process is a mental process (MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) and filtering content is also ineligible. (2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)) It’s appropriate to call the remediation of data to be either a comparison or a filtering. Since an abstract idea is present in the claim, the analysis continues to STEP 2B.
.
STEP 2B: If an abstract idea is present in the claim, it must be determined whether any element or combination of the elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, are there other limitations in the claim that show a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea?
Limitations referenced in the Alice Corp. that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include: Improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
“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.” (MPEP 2106.05)
So it comes down to a practical application under 2A Prong Two. Regarding using remediation schedule to determine it comprise anomalies or not to be either a comparison or a filtering. Therefore claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DOAN whose telephone number is 571 272-4317. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday and biweekly Friday 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571)272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN V DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449