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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 27 February 2026 amends claims 1, 7, 11, and 13. Claim 19 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 8 of the response, “The amendment cancels the terminology that allegedly renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, this rejection has been overcome. As such, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 is respectfully requested.” This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the previous §112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the response, “The amended claims avoid recitation of a mental activity due to practical limits of the human mind, as discussed during the interview.” In response, the Examiner explained during the interview that a quality assurance specialist (QAS) would be consulted regarding the amendments and whether or not the amendment would require analysis the is beyond the capacity of the human mind. During the consultation it was determined that the claims are not specific to how the claimed network log is utilized to create the graph, which is ultimately analyzed. More specifically, the claims do not specify how much of the claimed network log information is utilized to create the graph. Therefore, the claims allow for the possibility that the graph is created using a subset of network log data that is not beyond the capacity of the human mind.
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 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The reasons are as following:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (2019 PEG, Step 1).
Specifically, claims 1, 7 and 13 are directed to a method, a computer program product (non-transitory computer readable medium) and a system, respectively. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
2019 PEG step 2A prong one requires the determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13, “aggregating…” and “excluding…”, each of the limitations is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for those steps in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and the analysis moves to prong two of step 2A.
The limitations “causing display…” and “whereby the display” are mere data displaying at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data displaying and, as such, this limitation do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data displaying. See MPEP 2106.05.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the additional elements computer-implemented and computer network, are mere generic computer component.
The claims include limitations specific to what the graph represents. The claims do not define structure, nor do the claims require positive functional steps to be performed. Therefore, the claims cannot be considered to be an additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the exception, thus fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processor to perform the executing the instructions step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims each of which as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 7 and 13, are non-statutory as each is directed to a judicial exception without additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 additionally recite “assigning native scores for pending alerts to at least some of the edges between the nodes” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Accordingly, the claims are directed the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 additionally recite “distributing the assigned native scores from the edges to nodes connected to the edges” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, would be considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the exception, thus fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4, 10 and 16 additionally recite “the simple chains of connected nodes are separated by at least a pair of connected nodes” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and “an aggregate score ratio, the ratio including the aggregate score of the higher scoring node over the aggregate score of the lower scoring node, exceeds a ratio threshold; and the ratio threshold falls in a range between two and twenty-five” are just simply collecting data and manipulating the collected data and then make a judgement. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 20 simply recites additional limitations specific to what the graph represents. The claims do not define structure, nor do the claims require positive functional steps to be performed. Therefore, the claims cannot be considered to be an additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the exception, thus fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437