DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on May 21st, 2026.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (Pg. 5~6), that the amended independent claims 1 and 11 recite an invention with the clear purpose of improving the manner in which computers, which is patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants present no persuasive evidence that practicing the claims results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer. The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet. The amended portion reciting, “a group structure identification module implemented on a computing device and a synthetic random network generation module implemented on a computing device”, are claimed computer components recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an automated process of generating a covert network using covert network datasets. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. As currently construed, the claims simply collect data (anonymized input data), analyzes the data (probability), and displays the result (generate synthetic random network). Applicant is advised to refer to Example 39 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples that analyzes why/how the claim is eligible and does not recite a judicial exception.
As such the rejection under U.S.C 101 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite:
“receiving, by a group structure identification module implemented on a computing device, anonymized input data related to an original network, the anonymized input data comprising an anonymized list of nodes, a list of edges and a list of groups; determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure; and generating, by a synthetic random network generation module implemented on a computing device, at least one synthetic random network based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities.”
The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “modules”, “processor”, “memory”, and “computing device”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “determining…a probability” and “generating… a synthetic random network” in the context of these claims encompasses computerizing a manual process of generating a network graph. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
1. The claims recite additional elements “modules”, “processor”, “memory”, and “computing device” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2. The claims recite additional element of “receiving anonymized input data…” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because claims 1 and 11 as a whole is silent regarding specific limitations directed to improving a computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or the Internet, nor do Applicants direct any attention to such specific limitations.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “modules”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the insignificant extra solution activity of “receiving…” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information from memory; performing repetitive calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2~10 and 12~20
Claims 2~10 and 12~20 recite elements/limitations that also fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as identified above and also recite elements/limitations that are insignificant extra solution activity that simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 2~10 and 12~20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights