DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 13, 14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Accordingly, Claims 1-22 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 2, 15, 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 16-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0359649 (hereinafter Wallack) in view of US 2019/0087455 (hereinafter He) in view of US 2021/028694 (hereinafter Pajak) (Art of record) and in further view of LogBert Log Anomaly detection via Bert (hereinafter Bert) (Art of record).
As for claim 1 Wallack discloses: generating a sentence fingerprint that represents a plurality of database statements (See paragraphs 0036 and 0177 note an AI fingerprint is created for everything evaluated);
Wallack does not explicitly disclose: accepting, by an artificial neural network in training, an input that is the sentence fingerprint, nor inferring, by the artificial neural network after said training, a fixed-size encoded database statement from a new database statement nor detecting, based on the fixed-size encoded database statement, that the new database statement is anomalous. He however explicitly discloses accepting, by an artificial neural network in training, an input that is the sentence fingerprint (See paragraphs 0043-0045 note He discloses taking speech input and converting the input to a sentence structure that is used as input and compared to a sentence fingerprint database) while Pajak explicitly discloses: inferring, by the artificial neural network after said training, a fixed-size encoded database statement from a new database statement (See paragraphs 0055 and 0063 note the system uses tokens which are represented as embedding of fixed length). While Bert discloses: detecting, based on the fixed-size encoded database statement, that the new database statement is anomalous (See sections 1 and 3 note the system detects anomalous data as introduced to the system). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of Pajak and Bert into the system of Wallack. The modification would have been obvious because the four references are concerned with the solution to problem of data processing, therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since Pajak, He and Bert’s teaching would enable users of the Wallack system to have more efficient processing.
As for claim 3 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Bert discloses: wherein said anonymization comprises replacement of all literal values with a same predefined token (See section 3.3 note the system replaces keys with tokens).
As for claim 4 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Pajak discloses: wherein said training the artificial neural network comprises a vocabulary of at most a thousand tokens (See paragraph 0112).
As for claim 5 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Bert discloses: wherein: said training the artificial neural network is based on a first unlabeled training corpus; the method further comprises training an autoencoder to detect anomalies in a second unlabeled
training corpus that is smaller than the first unlabeled training corpus (See sections 1-3).
As for claim 6 the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Bert discloses: wherein the autoencoder has a latent space that contains at most eighty dimensions (See section 3).
As for claim 7 the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Wallack discloses: wherein the first unlabeled training corpus does not contain the second unlabeled training corpus (See paragraph 0108).
As for claim 8 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Pajak discloses: wherein the artificial neural network comprises none of: an autoencoder, a recurrent neural network, and a long short-term memory (See paragraph 0080).
As for claim 9 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Wallack discloses: wherein said training the artificial neural network comprises using at least one selected from a group consisting of negative sampling, a softmax, and a skip- gram (See paragraph 0071 note negative sampling).
As for claim 10 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Wallack discloses: wherein said training the artificial neural network is based on an entire training corpus that is unlabeled and an objective function that is based on the entire training corpus (See paragraphs 0003 and 0108 note the system can use all unlabeled images for training).
As for claim 11 the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and further Wallack discloses: wherein the entire training corpus consists of database statements or sentence fingerprints that represent database statements (See paragraphs 0036 and 0177 note an AI fingerprint is created for everything evaluated).
.
As for claim 12 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Wallack discloses: generating a second database statement fingerprint that represents a second plurality of database statements; said training the artificial neural network is further based on the second database
statement fingerprint (See paragraphs 0036 and 0177 note an AI fingerprint is created for everything evaluated).
As for claim 13 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Pajak discloses: wherein the fixed-size encoded database statement is a numeric vector said detecting is performed by an autoencoder that has a latent space that contains fewer dimensions than the numerical vector (See paragraphs 0004 and 0038).
Claims 14 and 16-20 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims substantially corresponding to the method of claims 1, 3-13 and are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 3-13.
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 ELIYAH STONE HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-0759. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)270-375098. 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.
/Eliyah S. Harper/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights