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 . This action is responsive to the Application filed on 06/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Claims 9-16 are directed towards the statutory category of a process. Claims 17-20 are directed towards the statutory category of a machine.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
from a user associated with an enterprise in natural language, the query being associated with one or more configurations within a cloud environment of the enterprise (mental process); and
a feedback mechanism for obtaining feedback from the user based on the response (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon for programming at least one processor to perform steps of (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
receiving a query (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g));
processing the query via one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
providing a response to the query, wherein the response comprises data associated with the one or more configurations based on the query (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon for programming at least one processor to perform steps of (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
receiving a query (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer);
processing the query via one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
providing a response to the query, wherein the response comprises data associated with the one or more configurations based on the query (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer); and
exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the one or more LLMs do not have access to data associated with the enterprise (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
wherein the query comprises a request in natural language for applications having one or more specific properties, and wherein the response comprises a list of applications having the one or more specific properties (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
wherein the query comprises a request to compare a plurality of configurations, the plurality of configurations not being specified within the query, and wherein the processing comprises determining the plurality of configurations (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining the plurality of configurations is based on any of historic queries, a configuration currently implemented in the enterprises cloud environment, and newly recommended configurations (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
prior to receiving the query, the steps comprise: generating one or more application segments based on transactional data and location data associated with a plurality of users of an enterprise and a plurality of applications (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
wherein the query comprises a request to compare a plurality of configurations, and wherein the response comprises a comparison between one or more application segments currently implemented in the enterprises cloud environment and the one or more generated application segments (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
wherein the query comprises one or more questions relating to the one or more generated application segments, and wherein the response comprises reasoning behind the generating of the one or more application segments (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The remaining claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for at least the same reasons as those given above with respect to claims 1-8 with only the addition of generic computer components under step 2A prong 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations that merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong 2. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d). Moreover, the limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 of this title, 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.
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 are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sumedrea et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2025/0023779, hereinafter Sumedrea) in view of Dong et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2025/0005053, hereinafter Dong).
As to independent claims 1, 9, and 17, Sumedrea teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon for programming at least one processor to perform steps of (Paragraph 73. Claim 20, preamble):
receiving a query from a user associated with an enterprise in natural language, the query being associated with one or more configurations within a cloud environment of the enterprise (Paragraph 41, "The ACCM agent 105 may acquire the set of parameters by receiving, from the client device 101, a request (shown in FIG. 1 as RC/VC request) for recommended configurations and/or validated configurations for the network entities, where the request includes the set of parameters". Figure 2, natural language instructions);
processing the query via one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) (Figure 2, LLM 209. Paragraph 18, "the configuration model 106 may be a large language model (LLM)"); and
providing a response to the query, wherein the response comprises data associated with the one or more configurations based on the query… (Paragraph 19, "The ACCM agent 105 provides the one or more recommended configurations to the client device 101." Figure 2).
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach a feedback mechanism for obtaining feedback from the user based on the response.
Dong teaches a feedback mechanism for obtaining feedback from the user based on the response (Paragraph 6. Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the LLM feedback techniques of Dong to control the quality of the content filled in by the user and provide an answer that can satisfy the user (see Dong at paragraph 4).
As to dependent claims 4, 12, and 20, Sumedrea further teaches wherein the query comprises a request to compare a plurality of configurations, the plurality of configurations not being specified within the query, and wherein the processing comprises determining the plurality of configurations (Figure 2, instruction 201b supplies a pool of alternative IAM rule configurations and asks which is best for achieving a specified outcome. Paragraph 19, "The ACCM agent 105 may retrieve the one or more parameters from the rules, configurations, and/or policies database 112." Paragraph 24, "The ACCM agent 105 may provide the instruction 201 b to the LLM 209 to cause the LLM 209 to generate model output 203 b, where the model output 203 b includes an indication that recommends the best action to take given a particular pool of choices").
As to dependent claims 5 and 13, Sumedrea further teaches determining the plurality of configurations is based on any of historic queries, a configuration currently implemented in the enterprises cloud environment, and newly recommended configurations (Paragraph 23, "The ACCM agent 105 may use the LLM 209 to generate a recommendation based on a previously authored configuration/rule, where the recommendation indicates the next action to take. For example, the ACCM agent 105 may generate or obtain an instruction 201 a, which indicates the following: “I found the following configuration history for asset X: Rule 353->Rule 521->Rule 271."" Paragraph 16, "using generative artificial intelligence (e.g., an LLM, Recurrent Neural Network, text generating model based on diffusion techniques) to recommend and validate asset and/or cloud configurations").
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sumedrea in view of Dong and Siebel et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2024/0202221, hereinafter Siebel).
As to dependent claims 2, 10, and 18, the respective rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 are incorporated.
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach the one or more LLMs do not have access to data associated with the enterprise.
Siebel teaches the one or more LLMs do not have access to data associated with the enterprise (Paragraph 33, "the enterprise access control layer 115 facilitates the separation of underlying enterprise information (e.g., enterprise data, applications, systems) from the large language models 120").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the enterprise generative AI techniques of Siebel to effectively and efficiently leverage enterprise data and applications (see Siebel at paragraph 3).
As to dependent claims 3, 11, and 19, the respective rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 are incorporated.
Sumedrea further teaches the query comprises a request in natural language for applications having one or more specific properties (Paragraph 24, “Given the following pool of choices for rules helping me configure IAM policies for user X: iam: AllowA, iam: AllowB, iam: AllowC, iam: Deny AllExceptZ. What is the best configuration to write given I want to achieve Y?”).
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach the response comprises a list of applications having the one or more specific properties.
Siebel teaches the response comprises a list of applications having the one or more specific properties (Paragraph 124, "The result portion 705 also includes a ranked list of results 718").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the enterprise generative AI techniques of Siebel to effectively and efficiently leverage enterprise data and applications (see Siebel at paragraph 3).
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sumedrea in view of Dong and Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0254318, hereinafter Hu).
As to dependent claims 6 and 14, the respective rejections of claims 1 and 9 are incorporated.
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach prior to receiving the query, the steps comprise: generating one or more application segments based on transactional data and location data associated with a plurality of users of an enterprise and a plurality of applications.
Hu teaches prior to receiving the query, the steps comprise: generating one or more application segments based on transactional data and location data associated with a plurality of users of an enterprise and a plurality of applications (Paragraph 8, "determining i) app-segments that are groupings of application of the plurality of applications." Figure 7, policy generation stage 504. Figures 8-10. Paragraph 75, "The data gathering stage 502 includes obtaining data from application transactions and the data includes user meta-data and app meta-data." Paragraph 114, "User features (user meta-data) include (but not restricted to): User location." Paragraph 115, "App features (app meta-data) include (but not restricted to): port and protocol usage pattern; the computer process that initiated the connection to the application; similarity based on domain names; an organization's network addressing structure; app location").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the application segmentation techniques of Hu to reduce difficulty and time in creating the best policies for security (see Hu at paragraph 5).
As to dependent claims 7 and 15, Sumedrea further teaches the query comprises a request to compare a plurality of configurations (Figure 2. Paragraph 24, "The ACCM agent 105 may provide the instruction 201 b to the LLM 209 to cause the LLM 209 to generate model output 203 b, where the model output 203 b includes an indication that recommends the best action to take given a particular pool of choices").
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach the response comprises a comparison between one or more application segments currently implemented in the enterprises cloud environment and the one or more generated application segments.
Hu teaches the response comprises a comparison between one or more application segments currently implemented in the enterprises cloud environment and the one or more generated application segments (Paragraph 87, "existing customer already has data for app-segments and user groups for existing applications 402, 404. The input here can be log data from the ZTNA service, existing user groups, and newly discovered applications 402, 404. The goal here is to provide policy recommendation to either the existing applications 402, 404 (e.g., where there is wildcard access) and/or the newly discovered applications 402, 404." Figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the application segmentation techniques of Hu to reduce difficulty and time in creating the best policies for security (see Hu at paragraph 5).
As to dependent claims 8 and 16, Sumedrea further teaches the query comprises one or more questions relating to the one or more generated… segments, and wherein the response comprises reasoning behind the generating of the one or more… segments (Figure 2).
Sumedrea does not appear to expressly teach application segments.
Hu teaches application segments (Paragraph 8, "app-segments that are groupings of application of the plurality of applications").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the LLM cloud configuration of Sumedrea to include the application segmentation techniques of Hu to reduce difficulty and time in creating the best policies for security (see Hu at paragraph 5).
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Casey R. Garner whose telephone number is 571-272-2467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm, Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexey Shmatov can be reached on 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Casey R. Garner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
