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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pp. 8) that the claimed calculation by multiple Bloom filters must be performed while the data string is transiting the computer network, typically in less than a second, and as such cannot be practically performed mentally. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, the calculation involves steps to establish, perform, select, unset, and advance, each being an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One). Secondly, the abstract idea is performed after the data string is received at a computing device, not during the transiting of string bits over network wires. Thirdly, the calculation is practically performable by the computing device, which is high-level recitation of generic computer components and functions (Step 2A Prong Two). In summary, abstract idea performed by a generic computer component remains abstract, and is not eligible accordingly.
Applicant filed an Affidavit traversing rejections rule 132, arguing that the claimed invention cannot be performed mentally. This is only partially correct. The claimed invention involves multiple steps of abstract idea, some of which falling under the ‘mental process’ grouping, while others falling under the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping, per MPEP §2106.04(a). As a result, all steps combined remains an abstract idea, and the Affidavit is not sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step One
Claim 1 recites “A system” comprising sensors, non-transitory memory and processors. Claim 11 recites “A computer-implemented method”. Both are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“establish…Bloom filters” recites an abstract idea as a mathematical calculation, per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). One can mentally observe or evaluate by using a probabilistic data structure (i.e., Bloom filter) to represent a set of elements by a bit vector and a list of hash (i.e., mathematical) functions.
“perform a first insertion operation…by setting same bits in each Bloom filter” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate to insert an element by applying the list of hash functions and setting the corresponding bits in the bit vector.
“select…a set of bits…to be unset” and “unset each selected set of bits” recite an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by randomly selecting a set of bits in the bit vector to be unset.
“advance each index…to a position beyond the distinct selected set of bits” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by maintaining an index of the bit positions of the previous unset operation to constrain the next unset operation.
“query each Bloom filter…to determine whether the first data string has been inserted” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate to query an element by applying the list of hash functions and checking the corresponding bits in the bit vector.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 include additional elements “computer network”, “sensor”, “computing device”, “memory”, “instruction” and “processor”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 include additional elements “detect…a first data string transiting…”, “receive the first data string” and “receive the first data string again”, which qualify as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
In summary, claims 1 and 11 are not eligible. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively and recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong One
The following claims recite additional elements that are mentally performable.
Claim 2 recites identifying a to-be-inserted string to be malware, while Claim 12 recites identifying a previously inserted string as a duplicate, each of which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by searching for the new string in the set of elements to determine if the new string is a duplicate or malware.
Claims 3 and 13 recite determining if two distinct sets of bits to be unset are non-overlapping, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by comparing the two sets of bits to see if they are overlapping.
Claims 4 and 14 recite choosing the set of bits to be unset based a mathematical computation, which is an abstract idea as a mathematical calculation. One can mentally evaluate or judge by calculating the set of bits to unset.
Claims 5 and 15 recite choosing a Bloom filter for unsetting different bits when inserting vs. querying, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by randomly selecting a different Bloom filter to unset bits.
Claims 6 and 16 recite selecting the number of bits to be unset based on calculating the current level of saturation, which is an abstract idea as a mathematical calculation. One can mentally observe or evaluate by calculating the current level of saturation, and selecting the number of bits to unset accordingly.
Claims 7 and 17 recite selecting the number of bits to be unset based on the number or the size of hashes generated, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by determining the number or size of hashes, and selecting the number of bits to unset accordingly.
Claims 8 and 18 recite selecting the number of bits to be unset to ensure a predetermined number of chosen bits are already set, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge to ensure a fixed number of bits to unset are already set.
Claims 9 and 19 recite selecting the set of bits to be unset to maintain an invariant property between the sets of bits of two Bloom filters, which is an abstract idea as a mathematical relationship, per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). One can mentally observe or evaluate to compare two Bloom filters whose sets of bits to unset are related by an invariant (i.e., mathematical) property.
Claims 10 and 20 recite periodically unsetting bits prior to querying, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate to iteratively unset bits before querying.
In summary, these dependent claims do not add any additional elements sufficient to make the claims non-abstract. Therefore, they are not eligible accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Nandhini et al. Malicious Website Detection Using Probabilistic Data Structure Bloom Filter. ICCMC 2019, pp. 311-316.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLY X. QIAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SHELLY X QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154