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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 2/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) obtaining a pair of string elements, wherein the pair of string elements comprises a first string element and a second string element, the first string element comprises one or more first strings, the second string element comprises one or more second strings, wherein the first string element and the second string element represent computer alerts generated by a computing system, (2) separating the one or more first strings into a set of first string terms and the one or more second strings into a set of second string terms, (3) determining one or more string term distances based on the set of first string terms and the set of second string terms by: (4) determining entropies of corresponding string terms, (5) determining a sum of the entropies of corresponding string terms, (6) multiplying an entropy parameter with the sum of the entropies to obtained a scaled sum of the entropies, (7) generating a distance between the first string element and the second string element based on the one or more string term distances, (8) providing the distance to a machine learning clustering algorithm to generate a plurality of clusters, wherein the clustering algorithm groups data points into clusters based on distances between the data points, and (9) processing computer alerts to identify a security risk of the computing system based on the plurality of clusters generated according to the distance.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010). Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitation (1) is directed to a step of obtaining a pair of string elements, which are interpreted as some strings, like a sentence. Accordingly, the limitation amounts to mere data gathering to perform an abstract idea, which is IESA. The string elements representing computer alerts is merely describing the type of data and gives it no meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Limitation (2) is directed to a mental step of separating a string into its terms, which is a mental step that is practically perform by a person in the mind. Limitation (3) is directed to a determining step, which is a mental step, and is performed by performing limitations (4) through (6). Limitations (4) and (5) are directed to “determining” steps but are simply mathematical calculations. Determining an entropy for corresponding string terms is a mathematical calculation, such as using Shannon’s entropy calculation. Spec. at para. 0040. Determining a sum of entropies is simple addition of the determined entropies. Limitation (6) is directed to a mathematical calculation of multiplication using some entropy parameter. The entropy parameter, when interpreted in light of the specification, seems to be any value that will make the string term distance less than one when the string terms are different. The Supreme Court has treated claims that include multiple exceptions in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). As there are no bright lines between the types of judicial exceptions, and many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions, MPEP 2106.04, subsection I instructs examiners to “identify . . . the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) [that] aligns with at least one judicial exception.” Accordingly, limitations (3) through (6) are directed to mathematical calculations performed in the mind of a person. Limitation (7) is directed to the step of determining distance (i.e., similarity) between strings elements based on the string term elements. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generating … distances” is a mental step of determining similarity, which is an observation, evaluation and judgement step performed by a person. Alternatively, these steps could be interpreted as mere mathematical calculation. Accordingly, limitation (7) is directed to a mental step of performing a mathematical calculation. Limitation (8) is directed to a step of outputting data to a clustering algorithm to generate clusters and amounts to a mere step of outputting the generated distance to a machine learning clustering algorithm to generate a plurality of clusters, wherein the clustering algorithm groups data points into clusters based on distances between the data points. Accordingly, limitation (8) is directed to a step of applying mental steps to a computer for execution of the abstract idea. Limitation (9) is directed to a step of processing computer alerts using the generated plurality of clusters. Limitation (9) is thus directed to a mental process requiring evaluation and judgment, such as reviewing computer alerts and the plurality of generated clusters, and determing/identifying a security risk.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Limitation (1) is directed to mere data gathering, which is IESA as discussed above. Limitation (2) is directed to a step of separating a string, which is a mental step that can practically be performed by a person through observation and evaluation, with the aid of pen and paper. Limitations (3) through (6) are directed to mathematical calculations, which can be performed in the mind of a person, as discussed above. As noted, the calculation for an entropy can be performed using a known mathematical calculation, such as Shannon’s entropy. Limitation (7) is directed to a step of generating a distance, which is also directed to a mathematical calculation that can be performed in the mind of a person. The limitation does not recite specifics of how the distance is generated or how the string term distances are utilized to generate it, that would add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea and demonstrate an improvement to the technology. Lastly, limitation (8) is directed to providing data to a machine learning clustering algorithm to generate clusters. The limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) 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. Here, the claim recites no details about a particular machine learning clustering algorithm. The clustering algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the cluster generation) without placing any limitation on how the clustering algorithm operates to generate clusters. In addition, the limitation would cover every mode of implementing the recited abstract idea using a clustering algorithm. The claim omits any details as to how the clustering algorithm solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (9) is directed to a mental process that involves evaluation and judgment in a step of “processing computer alerts.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely requires a person review the computer alerts and the generated clusters and make a determination to identify security risks. The limitation does not recite specific steps of how the alerts are processed using the plurality of clusters in order to identify the security risk. Therefore, it does not recite specifics that would adequately demonstrate an improvement to the technological field.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For much of the same reasons as described above, the limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The limitations do not recite specific steps that provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and merely recite steps of IESA, mental steps involving observation and evaluation and/or mathematical calculation, and applying a computer to perform the abstract concepts (i.e., the clustering). For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the one or more string term distances are generated further based on one or more distance parameters, wherein the one or more distance parameters comprises a length parameter, a user matching parameter, a case matching parameter, or a name convention matching parameter. These limitations are directed to various parameters for generating distances, but do not recite how these parameters are used with any specificity, to generate the distances in a manner that would necessarily require use of a computer. In this case, the parameters recite aspects of strings and text that can be discerned by a person through observation and evaluation. Moreover, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations require only one of the listed parameters. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, the limitations do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 4
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 4 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the distance between the first string element and the second string element is generated based on a sum of the one or more string term distances. The limitation is directed to a simple mathematical calculation of summing distances. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, the limitations do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 4 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 5 and 6
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 5 and 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claims 5 and 6 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein each first string of the one or more first strings and each second string of the one or more second strings represent an indicator of a computer alert and (2) wherein the indicator of the computer alert indicates a command or a file path. These limitations are directed to the type of data that is being processed, which merely ties the abstract idea to a particular field, such as computer alerts. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, the limitations do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claims 5 and 6 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 7 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 7 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the clustering algorithm is a density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) algorithm. The limitation specifies a particular clustering algorithm. Based on the specification at para. 0049, DBSCAN is one of a list of possible clustering algorithms, which are provided as examples. Accordingly, use of DBSCAN does not provide an improvement to existing technology. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons, the limitations do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 10-14 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1 and 3-7, respectively, in the form of a computer readable medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 8 recites additional components of a “computer readable medium” and an “electronic device”. However, they are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea that would integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 15 and 17-20 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, in the form of a system. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 15 recites additional components of a “computer”, “computer memory devices” and “non-transitory machine readable media”. However, they are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea that would integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C 101
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Claim limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to step 2A-1, Applicant alleges claim 1 recites specific operations of processing computer alerts to identify a security risk of the computing system, which cannot be performed in the human mind. Remarks at 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 merely recites “processing computer alerts to identify a security risk of the computing system based on the plurality of clusters generated according to the distance,” but there are no steps as to how the processing is performed to identify the security risk. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim merely quires reviewing of the computer alerts and reviewing the generated clusters in some manner, and making a determination of whether or not there is a security risk. These are steps of evaluation and judgment, which are mental process actions, that can be performed by a person in the mind with the aid of a computer as a tool (e.g., displaying the alerts and the clusters). The fact that the alerts are generated by a computer does not mean that they must be analyzed by a computer or can only be analyzed by a computer. The claim recites no specifics as to how the alert is structured that would prevent a person from analyzing them nor does it recite how the computer alerts are processed using the clusters that would make it impossible for a person to practically perform in the mind with the aid of a computer as a tool. For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
In regards to step 2A-2, Applicant alleges the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a method and system for improving the security of computer systems, citing paras. 0007-0012 of the specification. Remarks at 9-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cited para. 0007 indicates that an issue needing resolution is the inability to perform meaningful clustering and finding meaningful patterns in alerts. Applicant cites para. 0012 and asserts it describes the invention’s solution to the issue in the form of a modified method for string distance calculation. However, none of the claims adequately and sufficiently recite limitations that convey the asserted improvement as described in the specification at para. 0012. At best, the claims merely recite generating a string distance using one parameter without any determination of weights of the parameter, which is insufficient to convey the asserted improvement. Note that merely reciting that the distance is generated using all the described parameters would still be insufficient to convey the asserted improvement if the claim does not recite limitations specifically describing how the generated distance (i.e., which is essentially a mathematical calculation) is inventively used. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For at least these reasons, the amended claims do not recite sufficient limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant does not present arguments with regards to step 2B. Therefore, Examiner asserts the claims also do not recite an inventive concept for the same reasons as explained above.
Consequently, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Tang (US Patent 10,324,956) discloses a system and method for automatically mapping organizations to addresses and utilizes Shannon entropy and calculation of string distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
TONY MAHMOUDI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2163
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163