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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on May 13, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an
abstract idea of expression patterns matching. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of expression patterns matching. The claim is drawn to process (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’.
The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This expression patterns matching is similar to collecting and comparing known information found by the courts to be abstract idea (Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharm., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1920 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); and also displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recites the result (expression patterns matching), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “expression patterns matching, along with a generic computing device that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using computing device as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - -the computing device - -“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic computer. The claim amounts to no more than expression patterns matching. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing computer-based patterns matching, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using computing device well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of patterns matching, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as finding prefix; specified minimal prefix length, even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17, are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valgenti et al. (US 2016/0028766).
As per claim 1, Valgent discloses, a computer-implemented method comprising:
parsing a set of regular expression patterns to generate an output (Paragraph 0040, “regular expression represents the parsing ..”);
processing the output to determine whether any of the set of regular expression patterns meets a specified criteria including whether a regular expression pattern is a single path regular expression (Paragraphs 0041 and 0047);
using a first splitting process, splitting any of the set of regular expression patterns that meet the specified criteria into a first set of tokens (Paragraph 0047); and
using a second splitting process, different from the first splitting process, splitting any of the set of regular expression patterns that fail to meet the specified criteria into a second set of tokens (Paragraph 0047, “If the index does not exist, then a new group is created and the regular expression and transition sequence is added to that new group.”).
As per claim 2, Valgenti discloses, wherein the first splitting process comprises finding each of any prefixes that corresponds to a shortest unique prefix for any of the set of regular expression patterns that meet the specified criteria (Paragraph 47, minimum shared prefix length).
As per claim 3, Valgent discloses, wherein the shortest unique prefix comprises a minimal prefix length that is unique against a prefix tree for any of the set of regular expression patterns that meet the specified criteria (Paragraph 0047).
As per claim 4, Valgent discloses, wherein any prefixes found to be corresponding to the shortest unique prefix are compiled for processing by a deterministic finite automaton (Paragraph 0012).
As per claim 5, Valgent discloses, wherein any remaining suffixes for the set of patterns, excluding any prefixes found to be corresponding to the shortest unique prefix, are compiled for processing by a non-deterministic finite automaton (Paragraph 0017).
As per claim 6, Valgent discloses, wherein the second splitting process comprises: (1) starting from each top level token of a regular expression calculating a size of a set of acceptable strings limited by a value of a specified minimal prefix length, (2) while keeping the size of the set of acceptable strings limited, increasing lengths of each of the acceptable strings, and (3) from among resulting sets of acceptable strings, selecting a first one of the acceptable strings that has a specified maximal length (Paragraph 0047).
As per claim 7, Valgent discloses, wherein the first splitting process outputs a first deterministic finite automaton (DFA) part of an abstract syntax tree (AST) and a non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA) part of the AST, and wherein the second splitting process outputs a second DFA part of the AST and a second NFA part of the AST (Fig. 2, and Paragraphs 0038-0041, “Parse tree”).
As per claim 8, Valgent discloses, a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating an abstract syntax tree by parsing a set of regular expression patterns (Paragraphs 0040-0041, “regular expression represents the parsing ..” and “. ..converted to a parse tree”);
processing the abstract syntax tree to determine whether any of the set of regular expression patterns meets a specified criteria including: (1) whether a regular expression pattern is a single path regular expression, and (2) whether the regular expression pattern excludes assertions (Fig. 2, and Paragraphs 0041 and 0047);
using a first splitting process, splitting any of the set of regular expression patterns that meet the specified criteria into a first set of tokens (Paragraph 0047); and
using a second splitting process, different from the first splitting process, splitting any of the set of regular expression patterns that fail to meet the specified criteria into a second set of tokens (Paragraph 0047, “If the index does not exist, then a new group is created and the regular expression and transition sequence is added to that new group.”).
As per claims 9-20, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-7, because the corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marom et al. (US 2016/0253378) discloses, practical modular finite automation.
Ruehle et al. (US 2014/0215090) discloses, DFA sub-scans.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
January 6, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656