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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 02/09/2026, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18351468.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are pending.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are cancelled.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18351468 filed 07/12/2023 claims foreign priority to 202310594373.5 filed 05/24/2023.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and overcome the prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to the 101 rejection:
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The storage device, database and processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, storage device, database and processor to inter alia perform the function of performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data and performing classification calculation is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data and performing classification calculation which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: storage device, database and processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, storage device, database and processor to inter alia perform the function of performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data and performing classification calculation is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47. Anomaly Detection. Per the analysis of claim 2 Example 47, the analysis refers to MPEP 2106.05(f) which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Although the additional elements, e.g. (per Example 47) “using a trained ANN”, limits the identified judicial exceptions, e.g. (per Example 47) “detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN” and, e.g. (per Example 47) “analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data,” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. (per Example 47: neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As an exemplary direction for claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 1 and 3 of Example 47. With respect to the present claims, the following addition is considered with respect to Example 47: the task profile building module executes log mining according to the historical behavior information to generate task label data in the task profile data,wherein the task profile building module performs classification calculation according to the task information and the task label data to build a task profile map in the task profile data and performs classification calculation according to the task label data to train and update the task profile building module, wherein the task profile map comprises structured data of a relationship between the task information and the task label data. These limitations are being used to train and update the task profile building module. Example 47 claim 3 provides not only incorporating machine learning but uses machine learning to detect anomalies and dropping malicious network packets and blocking future traffic from the source address. Thus, the training and updating the task profile building module limitations, taken individually and as an ordered combination, does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more and/or provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
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 1-7, 10-17, and 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. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
a storage device, storing a plurality of modules and accessing an enterprise database of an enterprise system, wherein the modules comprise a user profile building module, a task profile building module, and a profile matching module; and a processor, coupled to the storage device, and executing the modules, wherein the user profile building module and the task profile building module perform data mining according to historical behavior information, user information, and task information in the enterprise database to generate user profile data and task profile data, wherein the profile matching module performs data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data to generate a profile knowledge map, so that when the enterprise system receives input information, the enterprise system obtains recommended data that matches the input information from the user profile data, the task profile data, and the profile knowledge map wherein the task profile building module executes log mining according to the historical behavior information to generate task label data in the task profile data, wherein the task profile building module performs classification calculation according to the task information and the task label data to build a task profile map in the task profile data and performs classification calculation according to the task label data to train and update the task profile building module, wherein the task profile map comprises structured data of a relationship between the task information and the task label data.
[or]
storing a plurality of modules by a storage device, and accessing an enterprise database of an enterprise system, wherein the modules comprise a user profile building module, a task profile building module and a profile matching module; and executing the modules by a processor, comprising: performing data mining by the user profile building module and the task profile building module according to historical behavior information, user information, and task information in the enterprise database to generate user profile data and task profile data; and performing data mining by the profile matching module according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data to generate a profile knowledge map, so that when the enterprise system receives input information, the enterprise system obtains recommended data that matches the input information from the user profile data, the task profile data, and the profile knowledge map wherein the step of performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user information, and the task information in the enterprise database to generate the user profile data and the task profile data comprises: executing log mining by the task profile building module according to the historical behavior information to generate task label data in the task profile data; performing classification calculation by the task profile building module according to the task information and the task label data to build a task profile map in the task profile data; and performing classification calculation by the task profile building module according to the task label data to train and update the task profile building module, wherein the task profile map comprises structured data of a relationship between the task information and the task label data..
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The storage device, database and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic storage device, database and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data by a storage device, database and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: storage device, database and processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, performing data mining according to the historical behavior information, the user profile data, and the task profile data by a storage device, database and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0019 wherein “the processor 120 may be, for example, a signal converter, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a central processing unit (CPU), or other programmable general-purpose or special-purpose microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP), programmable controller, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), programmable logic device (PLD) or other similar device or a combination of these devices.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 7 and similar dependent claims provide additional elements of first, second, third and fourth databases, however these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more since, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the structures are substructures of an overarching database structure. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624