DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed 2/13/2024 has been placed of record in the file.
Claims 28-47 are presented for examination.
The IDS filed 6/10/2024, the IDS filed 6/10/2024, the IDS filed 6/10/2024, and the IDS filed 2/5/2025 have been considered.
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 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a series of steps for selecting files via machine learning modules that use mathematical calculations to analyze the files. Here, the plain meaning of selecting encompasses mental observations or evaluations which are seen to fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed active learning module is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the element functions. The recitation of this element merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Even when viewed in combination, the additional functionality of the element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the additional functionality appears to provide instructions so as to apply the abstract ideas, but this in and of itself cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to a system comprising a processor. It is believed that such a “processor” would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill as the abstract idea of any portion of a computer code, including the forms of software, per se, used in computing. Therefore, the claims in question do not appear to fall within a statutory category of invention as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101. It is recommended that the applicant amend the claim to recite a “computer processor”, “hardware processor”, or the like. The applicant may also consider rewriting the claim into independent form in order to normalize the format with common practice.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 28-42, 46, and 47, the examiner requests minor changes of clarification to the independent claims in order to ensure that the detection aspect is fully activated throughout the claimed process. The examiner contends that, in its current form, the claimed “detecting” could be interpreted as the simple result of the selecting or sorting carried out by the machine learning itself. In such an interpretation, the claims could be analyzed as being directed to an abstract idea in the same way as claims 43-45 discussed above, where the claimed dynamic analysis environment, ML, and AL module could be seen as elements used to generally apply the abstract idea without practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493