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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 14 July 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are currently pending. Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103. However, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is maintained. The rejections are as stated below.
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 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 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 as discussed in the previous office action mailed on 27 January 2026.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for verifying the identification of one or more software vulnerabilities-based inputs from a user.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of displaying parameters of a testing session to receive input from a user during the testing session; monitoring inputs from the user during the testing session; and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs, wherein the one or more software vulnerabilities comprising at least one of an error, a flaw, a fault, or a vulnerability that is associated with at least one of an application service comprise a token located at a dynamically identified location in at least one of a memory or a file and have access to a dynamic alphanumerical string, and an input of the inputs comprises a token input provided through an answer box provided.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps of collecting data, analyzing user inputs and verifying correctness. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts performed by a human using pen and paper (including observation; evaluation; judgment; opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitation of a client computing system, a graphical user interface, a display device of the client computing system and a network of a computing system. The additional limitations (of claim 13) include a memory and a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 13 and 19. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
Dependent claims include the additional elements of a database, a port configuration, a memory requirement, and/or a CPU requirement of the virtual machine, a network, a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit, a second virtual machine, a second client computing system, a second and third graphical user interface and a display device As discussed above with respect to the independent claims The additional elements in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic machine performing a generic computer function of processing data. The limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
The remaining dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are deemed persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant submits that the amended claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception that “falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG mental process, “the claims are directed to a specific technological process for implementing and validating cybersecurity training within a virtual computing environment”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing user inputs and verifying correctness, which is clearly recite a mental process because observations, evaluations judging correctness may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. For example, the claims recite
displaying parameters of a testing session to receive input from a user during the testing session; monitoring inputs from the user during the testing session; and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more vulnerabilities from the inputs, including at least one of an error, a flaw, a fault, or a vulnerability that is associated with at least one of an application service comprise a token located at a dynamically identified location in at least one of a memory or a file and have access to a dynamic alphanumerical string, and an input of the inputs comprises a token input provided through an answer box provided. These tasks may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The amended claim limitations simply narrow the form of the secret indicator and the specific User Interface used to submit it, it does not change the abstract nature of the underlying idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As analyzed in the rejection above, the use of the computer system is simply a tool for performing the abstract idea. The claimed invention can be performed in an analog manner using pen and paper. The focus of the claimed invention is not on any improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims here do not recite an improvement in computers. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer or solve any technological problem. Rather, the claim simply “includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” and “does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”. The claim uses generic computer components and generic computer functionality. The claims merely use instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem.
In addition, Applicant submits that the claims show an integration of the technical improvement into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement computer technology. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency is inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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).
According to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), 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 or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• 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)
• 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 the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions (nothing in the claim improves the technical operation of the devices, memory management, network or any computer components). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant cites the Kim Memorandum regarding integration into practical application. The Kim memorandum emphasizes the recitation of a specific technological improvement and not just automation of a business process using generic computers. The present claims simply use ordinary virtualization and UI technology as a tool to perform the abstract assessment.
In Ex parte Desjardins, the claims are related to a specific improvement to machine learning models and to computer security architecture (improved authentication techniques), to ‘effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks.’ In contrast, the instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology.
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The use of a machine learning model to find patterns and generate risk signals does not remove the claim from the abstract idea. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights