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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, 12, 16-17, 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-20 recite a method and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites -
▪ generating a multi-sequence vector that contains a plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of a parse tree of source logic (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — limitation can be performed by the developer mentally analyzing a control flow tree that represents source code and generating a fixed size vector representation of the source code);
▪ training, based on the multi-sequence vector, a logic encoder (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can analyze and encode various vectors to establish patterns and classifications of data and amount to “Apply it” merely using a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training encoder merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception. I.e. a “logic encoder” is software);
▪ performing without parsing a new source logic: a) inferring, by the logic encoder, a fixed-size encoded logic from a new source logic (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a mathematical evaluation, which performs the determination, thereby further defining the abstract idea. A human being may use this mathematical calculation to facilitate the mental evaluation in order to arrive at the necessary determination. This claim limitation appears to recite both a mathematical formula and mental process);
▪ b) detecting, based on the fixed-size encoded logic, that the new source logic is anomalous (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — imitation can be performed by the developer mentally analyzing encoded logic to detect anomalous code);
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claim 12, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ training, based on the multi-sequence vector, a logic encoder (Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training machine learning model amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ wherein the method is performed by one or more computers (Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: merely invoking a computer components to apply the exception).
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claim 12 additionally recites “non-transitory computer-readable media.” However, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1 and 12 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For these reasons, independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 12, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1, 12 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1 and 12 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are patent ineligible because they are directed to an abstract idea that does not recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2-3, 7-8, 10 13-14, 18:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ generating each sequence of the plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of the parse tree by a respective distinct traversal of the parse tree; the plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of the parse tree contains at least three distinct sequences; wherein said at least one sequence in said plurality of distinct sequences is said plurality of distinct sequences; said distinct nodes of the parse tree consists of a plurality of terminal nodes and a plurality of non-terminal nodes; the plurality of terminal nodes are not entirely contiguous in each sequence of the plurality of distinct sequences; the parse tree of the source logic contains a plurality of edges that interconnect said distinct nodes of the parse tree; for each edge in the plurality of edges: the edge connects two distinct nodes of the parse tree, and the two distinct nodes are adjacent in at least one sequence in said plurality of distinct sequences (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine sequences, analyze and evaluate the tree, determine nodes, edges etc.).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements are recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 4, 9, 15, 19:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ the source logic comprises one or more database statements; the method further comprises based on said detecting that the new source logic is anomalous, not execution planning for the one or more database statements and not executing the one or more database statements; based on said detecting that the new source logic is anomalous, not parsing the new source logic (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user/developer can logically decide whether to proceed examining or not examining malicious code).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements are recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 5, 16:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ said training the logic encoder comprises self-supervised training; copying, after said training the logic encoder, the logic encoder into a new neural network; training the new neural network to detect whether source logic is anomalous, wherein the training the new neural network is not self-supervised (Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training machine learning model amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
self-supervised training; (Amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. A mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). and Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training machine learning model amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements: listed above in step 2A prong 2.
With respect to claims 6, 17:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ generating a neural network that can accept the source logic and the plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of the parse tree as input, wherein the neural network contains said logic encoder; self-supervised training the neural network to predict skipped tokens, wherein the self-supervised training the neural network comprises training the logic encoder; deploying, after the training the logic encoder, the logic encoder without the neural network (Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training machine learning model amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements:
a neural network; self-supervised training; deploying, after the training the logic encoder, the logic encoder without the neural network (Amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. A mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). and Amount to “Apply it”. 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, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using and training machine learning model amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements: listed above in step 2A prong 2.
With respect to claims 10, 20:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ wherein the logic encoder does not accept the entire multi- sequence vector as a single input (is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process using an algorithm of language processing (software). A developer is able to evaluate what vector input is desired).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements are recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-20 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims recipe limitation “performing without parsing a new source logic”. This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0018] (published version) instead teaches –
[0031] “Thus in production, logic encoder 171 accepts a sequence of tokens generated by tokenizing source logic 141. This tokenization is lexical, not syntactic. In other words, the token sequence may be generated by a scanner or lexer in a production computer. Because syntax is unneeded to generate the sequence of tokens E, C, D from source logic 141's raw text, a parser is not used to generate the token sequence in production, which means that the production token sequence does not expressly contain dependencies between tokens.”
Not using parser to generate the token sequence is not analogues to performing steps (a) and (b) “without parsing a new source logic.”
[0073] “logic encoder 171 accepts a token sequence that is generated by tokenization that is an order of magnitude faster than parsing and can be done before parsing. In other words, inference steps 206 and 208 may occur before parsing source logic 143.” - Using the parser before steps 206 and 208 is not exactly analogues to performing steps (a) and (b) “without parsing a new source logic.”
[0074] “may cause step 208 to decide to avoid computationally intensive activities such as parsing.” - Avoiding parsing is not exactly analogues to performing steps (a) and (b) “without parsing a new source logic.”
To elaborate – “without parsing” requires absence of parsing. Thus, parsing never occurs as part of the inference (very narrow). Prior to parsing (as disclosed by the specification, required temporal ordering, not absence of parsing. The specification shows that inference is performed first, but parsing may still occur later, thus parsing is deferred (strictly broader). Thus, inferring without parsing and inferring prior to parsing are not treated as synonymous in technical terms. The applicant is interpreting the specification, which does not constitutes as original disclosure.
Thus, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ( [the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining. ). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP 2163 - 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The dependent claims further carry the same deficiency and likewise rejected.
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 9 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.
Further, claim 9 fails to further limit the claim 1. Claim 1 requires detecting that source logic is anomalous without parsing. Claim 9 further states if source logic is anomalous – deciding not to parse. Thus, it is not clear what additional functionality is required, as the step of not performing the parsing is already determined. Thus, the required functionality of claim 9 is indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEUWLY et al. (US 2022/0198294) in view of De et al. (US 20170300306) and Salem et al. (US 20200372150).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, SCHNEUWLY teaches a method and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors comprising:
generating a multi-sequence vector that contains a plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of a parse tree of source logic ([0032]-[0034], [0042] “tree nodes are in some ways distinct” [0044], [0051] “contain tree paths of lengths one and three that are based on distinct sequences”, [0052]);
training, based on the multi-sequence vector, a logic encoder ([0051], [0055], [0064]-[0066]); and
performing without parsing a new source logic ([0030], [0036] “ML model should analyze a summary of parse tree such as bag of rules in respective embodiments instead of directly analyzing parse tree itself”, [0040] “may recognize syntactic patterns within parse tree without directly analyzing parse tree by instead analyzing bag of rules”) (see NOTE):
inferring, by the logic encoder, a fixed-size ([0046]-[0048], [0049] “bag of rules summarizes only paths of predefined lengths”, [0051]-[0052], [0055], [0057], F2) encoded logic from a new source logic ([0060], [0062], [0072]); and
detecting, based on the fixed-size encoded logic, that the new source logic is anomalous ([0062]-[0063]);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers (F4, [0088]).
NOTE - SCHNEUWLY teaches the ML model such as an artificial neural network (ANN) (aka logic encoder as shown in [0139]). SCHNEUWLY shows that ML model is trained on a parse tree of source logic (F3:302). In order to detect an anomaly in a new parse tree (new source code) a bag of rules is analyzed instead of directly analyzing parse tree itself. Not analyzing the parse tree obviously indicates that no parsing is performed on the AST (source code).
However, to further obviate such reasoning, De teaches performing without parsing a new source logic ([0019], [0030], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SCHNEUWLY to not parse the source code as disclosed by De. Doing so would drastically cutting the parsing time for the new source code and avoid the time consuming process of parsing the received source code (De [0019], [0030]).
Salem further teaches performing without parsing a new source logic ([0137], [0139]): a) and b) ([0138]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SCHNEUWLY to not parse the source code as disclosed by De. Doing so would provide a significant improvement on detection of previously undetected malware (De [0155]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media further comprising generating each sequence of the plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of the parse tree by a respective distinct traversal of the parse tree ([0022], [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media wherein the plurality of distinct sequences of distinct nodes of the parse tree contains at least three distinct sequences (SCHNEUWLY [0034], [0051]-[0052], [0072]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media wherein:
the source logic comprises one or more database statements (SCHNEUWLY [0058], [0079]); the method further comprises based on said detecting that the new source logic is anomalous, not execution planning for the one or more database statements and not executing the one or more database statements (SCHNEUWLY [0063]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media wherein:
the parse tree of the source logic contains a plurality of edges that interconnect said distinct nodes of the parse tree (SCHNEUWLY [0119]); for each edge in the plurality of edges: the edge connects two distinct nodes of the parse tree, and the two distinct nodes are adjacent in at least one sequence in said plurality of distinct sequences (SCHNEUWLY [0032], [0137]).
Regarding claim 8, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method of Claim 7 wherein said at least one sequence in said plurality of distinct sequences is said plurality of distinct sequences ([0034], [0051]-[0052], [0072]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media further comprising based on said detecting that the new source logic is anomalous, not parsing the new source logic (SCHNEUWLY [0063], De [0019], [0030], [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein:
said distinct nodes of the parse tree consists of a plurality of terminal nodes and a plurality of non-terminal nodes ([0024]-[0026]); the plurality of terminal nodes are not entirely contiguous in each sequence of the plurality of distinct sequences (SCHNEUWLY [0013], [0032]-[0034], [0039]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, SCHNEUWLY as modified teaches the method and the media wherein the logic encoder does not accept the entire multi- sequence vector as a single input (SCHNEUWLY [0044]).
Claims 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEUWLY as modified and in further view of Nikolic et al. (US 20230376743) or Zhao et al. (US 20180075349).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, SCHNEUWLY does not explicitly teach, however Nikolic and Zhao discloses said training the logic encoder comprises self-supervised training; the method further comprises after said training the logic encoder: including the logic encoder into a new neural network, and training the new neural network to detect whether source logic is anomalous (Nikolic [0016], [0020], [0063] and [0086]-[0087], Zhao [0031], [0052], [0031], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SCHNEUWLY as modified to include training the logic encoder, the logic encoder into a new neural network as disclosed by Zhao and Nikolic. Doing so may help detect more structurally complex interdependencies between tokens in the instruction sequence (Zhao [0081]).
Claims 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEUWLY as modified and in further view of Nikolic et al. (US 20230376743) or Liu et al. (US 20230042327).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, SCHNEUWLY does not explicitly teach, however Nikolic discloses self-supervised training the neural network to predict skipped tokens, wherein the self-supervised training the neural network comprises training the logic encoder (Nikolic [0016], [0021], [0031], [0114]-[0115]); deploying, after the training the logic encoder, the logic encoder without the neural network (Nikolic [0120], [0125]). Liu teaches the same in [0023], [0046]-[0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SCHNEUWLY as modified to predict skipped tokens as disclosed by Nikolic or Liu. Doing so may help detect malware in the source code.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the arguments are not persuasive. The claims are directed to a method of generating vectors, training encoder and perfuming inference and detection of anomalies without parsing the source code. While the claims may represent an improvement to the process of anomaly detection, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application. I.e. inferring anomaly without parsing source code is an improvement of the abstract idea only.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. Acclaim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
- Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
- Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
- Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP §2106.05(c); and
- Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
- Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(+);
- Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
- Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two’).
In view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract element recited in the only independent claim is: training logic encoder, one or more computers (claim 1) media (claim 12). These generic computer hardware merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, processing and transmitting data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant's determining of an event timeline and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
This recited additional element is merely a generic computer component. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on appeal merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
All of the recited steps, including the training are mathematical calculations, vectorial computations and logical reasoning.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims and the rejection under 35 USC 103, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
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 POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 March 12, 2026