DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 26 January 2026. Claims 1-12 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not currently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180027006
Pars. 119, 160-169, 596
Standardized reporting based on machine learning analysis of vendor specific and vendor agnostic collected event log data from multiple platforms
US 20160292592
Pars. 57-69, 186-195
Machine learning based control and classification of local client agent collected log data and reporting thereof
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 includes “processing the audit criteria by the LLM network module by parsing the predefined template documents to generate executable collection commands for the plurality of agents, and triggering automatic data collection by a collector executing the generated executable collection commands to create collected data.” Claim 7 includes similar language. The specification does not describe this subject matter.
The remarks present that the specification provides support for this limitation in pars. 5, 6, 41, 43, 48. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These paragraphs broadly describe receiving audit criteria in predefined template documents, a query processor that parses and interprets user input to determine the required processing, and triggering automatic data collection to create collected data. This is significantly broader than the claim language that requires, with emphasis, “processing the audit criteria by the LLM network module by parsing the predefined template documents to generate executable collection commands for the plurality of agents, and triggering automatic data collection by a collector executing the generated executable collection commands to create collected data.” The phrase executable collection commands is not present in the specification at all, much less in the manner claimed. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the installing, processing, parsing, correlating, normalizing, and generating, cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The providing/upload, receiving and LLM network module limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Providing/upload and receiving are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components (such as the claimed LLM network module). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, documents with predefined formats and criteria specifications are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 4-6 and 10-12, the regenerating and incremental updating of audit reports cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilder et al., Pub. No.: US 20140040182 A1, hereinafter Gilder in view of Sumedrea et al., Pub. No.: US 20250023893 A1, hereinafter Sumedrea.
As per claim 1, Gilder discloses a method, comprising:
providing a user interface on a web server for users to upload audit criteria, wherein audit criteria further comprises a mode of collection to be utilized by a collector module (par. 58, 63, 82 central admins and remote site personnel (i.e., users) define what to collect and how to collect);
installing a plurality of agents for automated data collection, wherein the agents are software modules controlled by an […] network module (pars. 44, 45, 64, 76, 77).
receiving audit criteria from users in predefined template documents into the […] network module (see rejection of providing limitation above and note the use of standardized forms; see also, pars. 10, 82, 112, 128, 170, 171);
processing the audit criteria by the […] network module by parsing the predefined template documents to generate executable collection commands for the plurality of agents, and triggering automatic data collection by a collector executing the generated executable collection commands to create collected data (pars. 64, 76-82, 112, 170-174);
Gilder does not explicitly disclose that the network module is a LLM.
However, Sumedrea in the related field of endeavors of data monitoring and data analysis discloses LLM (Sumedrea, pars. 18, 21, 22, 30, 31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Sumedrea would have allowed Gilder to further support his goal for “a centralized management approach that eliminates the need for expensive and scarce IT people or custom software at remote sites” (Gilder, pars. 43, 63) by “using generative artificial intelligence (e.g., LLMs …) to identify exposures of computing devices on computing networks to actual and/or potential threats” because LLM’s are “deep learning algorithms that can [automatically, and without the need for expensive and scarce IT people or custom software] recognize, summarize, translate, predict, and/or generate content using very large datasets.” (Sumedrea, pars. 16 and 21).
correlating the collected data via a correlate module to create correlated data (see Gilder pars. cited above including at least pars. 45, 57, 58, 59-62, 75, 78, 93, 124; fig.’s 23-26 wherein all disclosures of normalization, transformation, standardization, consolidation, etc. result in removing local origin/source/vendor specific format/structure (noise reduction) and transmitted (stream) for storage in a common format (targeted data));
normalizing, via a normalizer module, the correlated data across a plurality of vendors to create normalized data (see rejection of previous limitation; also, Gilder par. 63 discloses a centralized database stores all data in normalized and standardized form);
generating a unified audit report document file based on the normalized data (Gilder fig.’s 26-32; par. 45, 63, 156-159, 165, 169, 178-184).
As per claim 2, Gilder in view of Sumedrea discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the predefined template further comprises documents with predefined formats (see rejection of providing limitation of claim 1 and note the use of standardized forms; see also, Gilder pars. 10, 82, 112, 128, 170, 171).
As per claim 3, Gilder in view of Sumedrea discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the audit criteria specifies a variable of metrics and mode of collection (see rejection of providing and receiving limitations of claim 1).
As per claim 4, Gilder in view of Sumedrea discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unified audit report document files is regenerated using last collected information (see rejection of claim 1 including Gilder at least pars. 63, 75, 78, 82, 162, 164 all of which disclose creating/re-creating using latest ETL/collected data).
As per claim 5, Gilder in view of Sumedrea discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the unified audit report document files is regenerated on an on demand basis (Gilder pars. 103-105, 109).
As per claim 6, Gilder in view of Sumedrea discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the method provides incremental updates to the unified audit report document file including changes in audit criteria (see rejection of claim 1; also, Gilder at least par. 63, 82, 129 disclose ongoing monitoring includes definitions and updates for collection).
As per claims 7-12, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection and in response to argument A on page 6 of the remarks, it should be noted that McRO claimed specific rules that dictated how the automation operated. Here, the claims recite no such specificity. Using an LLM to do things describes a result, not a specific technique. In response to argument B, note that the claims do not recite any language about how the LLM performs parsing or generating. The intended result of performing the abstract idea on a network is not a practical application. In response to argument C, note that even when viewed in combination, these additional elements 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the remarks present the following in connection with the processing limitation of claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
141
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, the processing step does not require ingesting and parsing on the fly as argued, and the specification does not provide support for generating executable commands as presented in the claims (as indicated in the 35 USC 112 rejection above). Secondly, at least Gilder pars. 64, 76-82, 103-105, 109, 170-174 for exactly these concepts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
Syed Hasan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154