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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/17/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5) discloses “Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.” However, multiple Non-Patent Literature (NPL) documents listed do not disclose the publisher or place of publication (e.g., book, magazine, journal, etc. or the URL/web address of the webpage from which the NPL was retrieved). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
At step 1, independent claims 1 and 11 recite a method and storage medium, respectively, and are therefore statutory classes of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim(s) recite(s):
determining whether the structured input data output by the model is acceptable;
parsing the structured input data to generate templates that define zero trust architectures; and
parsing the structured input data to identify hardware and software that are approved for the zero trust architectures.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that could be performed mentally, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a storage medium and one or more hardware processors to perform the steps, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed mentally/by a human using pen and paper. For example, a user can mentally/with pen and paper upon receiving structured input data determine whether the structured input data output by a model is acceptable; can mentally/with pen and paper parse the structured input data to generate templates that define zero trust architectures; and mentally/with pen and paper parse the structured input data to identify hardware and software that are approved for the zero trust architectures. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concepts.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of a storage medium and one or more hardware processors. These claim elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a storage medium and one or more hardware processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional claim elements are:
receiving unstructured input data into a model configured to generate structured input data from the unstructured input data;
storing the templates in a first database when the structured input data is acceptable;
storing the identified hardware and software in a second database.
The limitations “receiving unstructured input data…,” “storing the templates…,” and “storing the identified hardware ….,” are mere data gathering and storage, are insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity such as i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) . See MPEP 2106.05(a). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of migrating a computing system to a zero trust architecture based on a template stored in the first database. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 3 and 13 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of migrating the computing system to the zero trust architecture using software and/or hardware specified in the second database. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 4 and 14 recite performing ingestion revisioning on the structured input data using at least a lint parser and wherein the structured input data is acceptable when errors are less than a threshold level. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. The claim recites the additional element of wherein an output of the lint parser is configured to be reviewable by a user. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
.
Claims 5 and 15 recite revising a revision script based on revisions identified when performing ingestion revisioning on the structured input data, wherein revisions are made to the revision script when the structured input data is not acceptable. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claims 6 and 16 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of re-ingesting at least a portion of the unstructured input data using the revision script, wherein a process of revising the revision script and at least a portion of the unstructured input data is re-ingested by the model until the structed input data is acceptable or for a predetermined number of iterations. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 7 and 17 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of applying a plurality of revision scripts when ingesting the unstructured input data, wherein each of the revision scripts is associated with a file type. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 8 and 18 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of wherein the revision scripts improve extracting data from new or unseen unstructured input data. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 9 and 19 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of wherein the unstructured input data comprises unstructured multimodal data including text and images, wherein sources of the unstructured input data include regulatory sources, provider sources, vendor sources, and complementary sources, wherein the complementary sources complement at least vendor sources or provide complementary information missing from the other sources. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 10 and 20 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, but do recite the additional element of wherein the templates comprise graphs that define zero trust constructs. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Habti (US 2019/0279101): flexible and scalable artificial intelligence and analytics platform with advanced content analytics and content ingestion;
Mai (US 2024/0054232): analyzing the build files of a particular system and its dependencies to determine the security of the build process;
McAleer (US 12,309,182): customer environment integration with anomaly detection systems;
Tan (US 2020/0356629): receive unstructured input data, analyze information contained in the unstructured input data, categorize related input data, and output structured data derived from the unstructured input data;
Zhao (CN 117312547 A): text data generating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166