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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 06/03/2026. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/03/2026 (hereinafter “REMARKS”), with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of the filed amendments. After additional consideration, claims 1-20 are rejected under 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This is a new ground of rejection and the action remains non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “… wherein the third TI data object is not connected to the second TI data object in a data structure that stores data reflecting relationships between TI data objects;” and it is unclear how a TI data object may be “not connected” to another data object in the same data structure. As, “connected” and “relationships” are different terms, and the generality with which “data structure” is recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any of the data objects may be connected in relation to their inclusion in the data structure. Therefore, the limitation lacks clarity, and the claims are thus rejected. Dependent claims are rejected for their dependence upon their respective independent claims, and for failing to remedy the issue.
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 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite “generating, using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, a first object embedding of a first threat intelligence (TI) data object, wherein the first TI data object comprises first one or more cybersecurity attributes of a business entity”, “for each second object embedding, generating a respective similarity value reflecting a similarity between the first object embedding and the respective second object embedding, wherein the respective similarity value is further based on a third object embedding, the third object embedding represents a third TI data object, wherein the third TI data object is not connected to the second TI data object in a data structure that stores data reflecting relationships between TI data objects”, “ranking, based on the similarity values, the plurality of second TI data objects”, “identifying, based on the ranking, a subset of the plurality of the second TI data objects that are relevant to the first TI data object”. Generating, using a general AI model, an embedding is merely forming a number or set of numbers to represent an entity. Generating a similarity value between different embeddings is performing a calculation over those numbers. Ranking objects based on those numbers is a mental process. Identifying a subset of objects based on the ranking is also a mental process. But for the use of a generic AI model, each of these steps can be performed mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of using an AI model, a processor and memory configured to perform the generating, ranking, and identifying steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, the recitation of “using an AI model” also merely indicates a field of use or technology environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Furthermore, obtaining information is merely data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, 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. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an AI model and processor and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technology. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 14 recite additional calculation of embeddings indicating how the first object embedding is created and fall under the mental process. Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 18-19 recite how the objects relate to security aspects and are merely further characteristics of the mental process. Claim 6 recites how the similarity value is calculated and adds to the mental process. Claims 7 and 8 recite training an AI sub model based on user feedback in the form of the user interacting with a user interface of the platform, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Training an AI model in this manner is a well understood, conventional activity for using an AI model. Official notice of this fact is taken. Claims 15-16 merely recite the AI sub-model as either an ANN or transformer and merely limits the field of use to a type of AI model, which are well implemented, conventional types and components of AI models in the art. Official notice of this fact is taken. Claim 20 recites filtering of the subset of data objects based on a filter criterion, and this falls under the mental process.
35 USC 102 and 103
Claims 1-20 are not rejected under any prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P MOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/JAMES P MOLES/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights