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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on 3/13/2026. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are amended. 1-20 are pending examination.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong one. Claims 1 recites an abstract idea. The claim recites collecting information analyzing information, generating derived information and applying rules or policies tot eh information. Specifically, the claim recites receiving event records from multiple sources, extracting data according to a schema, generating aggregated values, generating a continuous data point between aggregated values suing a statistical model or policy, and determining compliance with a service level agreement (SLA). These limitations describe data observation, data analysis, mathematical processing, and evaluation of information. Such concepts are considered abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally or with pe and paper and are similar to concepts identifies by courts as abstract ideas. The claim further recites applying a statistical mode or policy to determine compliance with the SLA. This limitation recites mathematical concepts and evaluation of information. The claim also recites generation a continuous data point between two aggregated values. This limitation recites mathematical relationships and calculation performed on data.
Step 2A, Prong Two. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited int eh claim including a computing environment, cybersecurity monitoring system, SaaS providers, ticket management systems, cloud computing storage, and distributed storage. These elements are recited at high level of generality and perform generic computer functions such as receiving data, storing data, retrieving data and processing data. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, storage technology, network operation, or distributed computing technology.
The limitation reciting “storing only the plurality of aggregated values associated metadata” simply describes storing selected information instead of other information. This is considered data management and does not improve the functioning of the computer itself. The claim also does not recite specific algorithm or technical implementation for generating the continuous data point or for applying the statistical model.
Step 2B. the claims does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, considered individually and as ordered combination, amount to no more than generic computer implementation of the abstract idea. Receiving records from multiple sources, extracting data, storing data in a cloud or distributed storage, retrieving data, and applying policies are well understood, routine and conventional computer activities. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons because the additional limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity, field of use limitations, or further data analysis and presentation operations performed using generic computer components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding claims rejected under 35 USC § 101
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the claims recite a specify architecture for managing large-scale cybersecurity telemetry through schema-based, time window aggregation aggregate-only storage, and request-driven reconstruction of intermediate values, the claim still recites collecting, organizing, analyzing, storing, and processing information. The additional elements describe the type of information being processed and the manner in which the information is organized. However, organizing and manipulating information, including aggregation and interpolation of data, remain abstract data-processing operations. The claim does not recite specific improvement to computer technology itself. For example, the claim does not recite a particular storage architecture, database architecture, distributed synchronization mechanism, memory management technique or network communication improvement. The claim broadly recites “cloud computing storage or distributed storage” without reciting any specific technical implementation. Similarly, the claim broadly recites “applying a statistical model or policy” and “generating a continuous data point” without reciting a specific technological mechanism for performing those operations.
Applicant’s argument that the claims solve a technical problem in distributed computing environment is not persuasive because the claim simply uses generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea. The recited cybersecurity monitoring systems, SaaS providers, ticket management systems, cloud storage, and distributed are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary and expected functions of receiving, storing, retrieving and processing information.
Under step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims are applied in the field on cybersecurity telemetry and distributed computing, limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not make the claim patent eligible. The interpolation and policy evaluation operations are still directed to mathematical analysis and evaluation of information. The claim does not improve the operation of the computer itself or another technology. Instead, the computer is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B is not persuasive. The ordered combination of element does not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements merely perform conventional computer functions in their ordinary manner. Receiving event records from multiple sources, extracting data according to a schema, aggregating information over time windows, storing selected data, retrieving stored information, and applying policies are well-understood, routine and conventional data-processing activities.
The claimed “aggregate only storage” limitation merely describes a choice regarding which information is retained and which is discarded. This limitation amounts to data organization and storage management rather than an improvement to storage technology itself. Similarly, “request -driven reconstruction” of intermediate values simply describes generating derived information is response to a query. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm or technological implementation that improves computer performance. The claims are similar to claims found abstract is Electric Power Group, LLC .v. Alstom, because they claims are directed to collecting information from multiple sources, analyzing information and displaying or using the results. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights