DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicant
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 5 and 15 have been previously canceled. Now, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 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.
4. Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 6-10 are drawn to a system (machine) and 11-14 and 16-20 are drawn to a method (process) which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
5. Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites, in part, a system and a method comprising the following steps:
analyze a plurality of processes for an enterprise; and
compare metadata associated with the plurality of processes;
clean the metadata associated with the plurality of processes by removing stop words from the metadata;
lemmatize remaining words in the metadata;
create a corpus of combined information for the plurality of processes;
obtain a vector representation for the plurality of processes;
identify similarities between the plurality of processes, using the vector representation; and
automatically detect when a new process is added to the plurality of processes by comparing the new process to the plurality of processes and
displaying the similarities between the plurality of processes;
generate a notification when the new process has a similarity score sufficient to meet a threshold with one or more of the plurality of processes; and
wherein prevention of implementation of the new process when the similarity score is sufficient to meet the threshold reduces a number of processes to thereby reduce processing overhead.
The above-recited limitations also amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people and human behavior, (i.e. analyzing a plurality of processes, comparing metadata, cleaning the metadata, lemmatizing remaining words, creating a corpus, obtaining a vector representation, identifying similarities, detecting when a new process is added, displaying the similarities, generating a notification and preventing implementation) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Claims 1 and 11 does recite additional elements:
One or more processors;
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media;
A similarity engine programmed to use machine learning;
A models engine;
A display engine;
Using the machine learning;
Machine learning;
A database; and
A display;
The computer system.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“one or more processors”, “non transitory computer-readable storage media”, “a similarity engine programmed to use machine learning”, “a models engine”, “a display engine”, “train the machine learning”, “using the machine learning”, “machine learning”, “a database”, “a display”, and “the computer system”,) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (analyzing, comparing, cleaning, lemmatizing, creating, training, obtaining, identifying, detecting, displaying, generating, and preventing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 14, 17 and 52-56 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
6. Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 11 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons. Further, dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 11 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
7. Regarding claims 7 and 17:
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite, in part, to compare taxonomies between the plurality of processes. Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of associating/comparing data, including functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “executed by the one or more processors”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 recite a practical application and therefore the claim is not directed to any judicial exception under Step 2S, Prong Two and when evaluated as a whole, amended claim 1 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical functioning of the computer system itself and that the technical improvements are consistent with the framework in the Desjardins Memorandum.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of the claim limitations outlined above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer- related technology. The prevention of the implementation of a process is not a technological improvement. It is like the concept of determining not to store certain data in a database. It does not improve the function of the computer or how the system stores data. The reduction of storage space is an incidental result of performing a normal computer function. Further, the improvement is not to the machine learning, the machine learning is recited at a high-level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to training machine learning are claimed at all. Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to (removing stop words from the metadata, lemmatizing remaining words, and obtaining a vector representation using machine learning) are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. The structural elements of the present application (i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, a similarity engine, a models engine, a display engine, train the machine learning, machine learning, a database, a display, the computer system, etc.) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more...the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
Further, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The claims are merely organizing and analyzing data, the structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. analyzing a plurality of processes, compare metadata, clean the metadata, lemmatize remaining words, create a corpus, obtain a vector representation, identifying similarities, detecting when a new process is added, displaying the similarities, generating a notification and preventing implementation) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment). These steps also amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior, (i.e. analyzing a plurality of processes, identifying similarities, detecting when a new process is added, displaying the similarities, generating a notification and preventing implementation) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment. Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
With regards to Ex parte Desjardins, the Examiner asserts that training the machine learning is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to training machine learning are claimed at all. The Examiner again asserts that the computer and hardware is not what is being improved, but rather, hopefully, the way the human uses the hardware is being improved, which merely amount to the hardware being used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner asserts that using general purpose computer hardware to implement the abstract idea does not make the claims eligible. Further, the way that the prevention of the new process is being performed, it “allow(s) the user to decide whether to proceed with the new process or utilize an existing process to thereby avoid further redundancy” (Applicant’s Specification para. 51). Therefore, that is part of the abstract idea and cannot be a technological improvement. The claims in the instant application are not analogous to the framework in Desjardins. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
B. Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 is directly analogous to Example 47 (Anomaly Detection) of the 2024 Al SME Update Examples, and that both represent specific technological improvements to their respective technical fields.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to Example 47 (Anomaly Detection) of the 2024 Al SME Update Examples, this example is not analogous to the claims in the present application. The present claims do not follow the same fact pattern as Example 47. In the claimed invention of Example 47, the claim recites a combination of additional elements of “(d) detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets,” “(e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets,” and “(f) blocking future traffic from the source address.”. The claim, in Example 47, as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by detecting network intrusions and taking real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The background section in Example 47, further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions. The present application does not enhance security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions. The present application automatically detects new processes, generates notifications when similarity thresholds are met, and prevents implementation of redundant processes, it does not enhance security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions. Therefore, the present claims are not analogous to those in example 47.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Online Anomaly Detection of Vector Embeddings (US 20210243210 A1) teaches providing an anomaly detection system. Some aspects of this disclosure include a method for detecting anomaly in a network device. The method includes determining one or more similarity values between a flow vector corresponding to a flow associated with the network device and one or more flow clusters associated with the network device;
Hierarchical graph analysis (US 11256759 B1) teaches A logical graph is generated using at least a portion of log data received from a set of agents executing on one or more nodes in one or more data centers. The logical graph is generated at least in part by clustering a first set of nodes using a first clustering criteria. The logical graph is augmented at least in part by performing a reclustering operation using a second clustering criteria.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) computer-accessible medium. 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 computer-accessible medium, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR computer-accessible medium, 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 computer-accessible medium, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights