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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 or 6 recite(s) receiving definitions of a plurality of targets of each of a plurality of data sources, the plurality of targets comprising users of or that interact with, at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of behaviors, each behavior in the plurality of behaviors comprising at least one activity that is performed on at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of period types of special time periods for which the plurality of behaviors during at least some of the special time periods are expected to have means that deviate from means of periods outside of the special time periods, receiving, from each of the plurality of data sources, indications of actions performed by the plurality of targets using the plurality of data sources within a specified period, an identifier of the plurality of the targets that performed each of the actions, and dates of the specified period, applying the definitions of the plurality of behaviors to the indications of actions, for each of the plurality of targets to identify a plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets, identifying at least one applicable period type of the plurality of period types for the specified period, identifying a count for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets during the specified period, determining at least one statistic including a mean number of times each behavior of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets was performed in at least one period before the specified period for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining at least one behavior score for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type by applying a model to the at least one statistic for each of the plurality of behaviors by each of the plurality of targets and to a number of times each of the plurality of behaviors was identified as performed by each of the plurality of targets, determining a period type score for each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type based on the at least one behavior score for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining a total score for each of the plurality of targets based on a the period type score for each of the at least one applicable period type for each target, and automatically revoking a target's privileges on at least one of the plurality of data sources by automatically retrieving identification information of a target from a database and sending the identification information and a revocation instruction to the at least one of the plurality of data sources responsive to the total score or at least one of the at least one period type score for said target being outside of a threshold indicating anomalous behavior of the target. These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 1: The claims are directed to the statutory categories of a system (apparatus) and a method, respectively. Step 1: Yes.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim 1 or claim 6 recites the limitation of definitions of a plurality of targets of each of a plurality of data sources, the plurality of targets comprising users of or that interact with, at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of behaviors, each behavior in the plurality of behaviors comprising at least one activity that is performed on at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of period types of special time periods for which the plurality of behaviors during at least some of the special time periods are expected to have means that deviate from means of periods outside of the special time periods, receiving, from each of the plurality of data sources, indications of actions performed by the plurality of targets using the plurality of data sources within a specified period, an identifier of the plurality of the targets that performed each of the actions, and dates of the specified period, applying the definitions of the plurality of behaviors to the indications of actions, for each of the plurality of targets to identify a plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets, identifying at least one applicable period type of the plurality of period types for the specified period, identifying a count for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets during the specified period, determining at least one statistic including a mean number of times each behavior of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets was performed in at least one period before the specified period for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining at least one behavior score for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type by applying a model to the at least one statistic for each of the plurality of behaviors by each of the plurality of targets and to a number of times each of the plurality of behaviors was identified as performed by each of the plurality of targets, determining a period type score for each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type based on the at least one behavior score for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining a total score for each of the plurality of targets based on a the period type score for each of the at least one applicable period type for each target, and automatically revoking a target's privileges on at least one of the plurality of data sources by automatically retrieving identification information of a target from a database and sending the identification information and a revocation instruction to the at least one of the plurality of data sources responsive to the total score or at least one of the at least one period type score for said target being outside of a threshold indicating anomalous behavior of the target. This 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 hardware computer processor and computer system element, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses a person can perform the steps of identifying applicable period type for a specified period, counting each behavior, determining a mean number for each behavior, applying a mathematical model, and determining a score, with the use of pen and paper. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is performed by the human administrator, using the computer. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that can be conducted mentally by a person with the aid of pen and paper by stating what systems the user has access to.
For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses allows users to receive and apply the definition information and revoke privileges of users, with the use of mitigating risk. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is mitigating risk of improper behavior and prevent user from performing activity he or she could have performed otherwise. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that mitigating risk of fundamental economic practice of suspected of improper behavior.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional elements: at least one memory, at least one processor and computer system elements are used to receiving, applying, identifying, applying, determining and revoking steps.
The additional elements in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor or generic computing device performing a generic computer function of processing data (a computer processor and computer system elements). Specification [0013]-[0015] and [0075] supports that any conventional computer, computer storage, and database may be used to implement the claimed abstract idea.
This computer processor and computer system element limitation is 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. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claims provide(s) an Inventive Concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claim 1 and 6 are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-5, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 7-10, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 6. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that in regard to Step 2A, Prong 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim 1 or claim 6 recites the limitation of definitions of a plurality of targets of each of a plurality of data sources, the plurality of targets comprising users of or that interact with, at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of behaviors, each behavior in the plurality of behaviors comprising at least one activity that is performed on at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of period types of special time periods for which the plurality of behaviors during at least some of the special time periods are expected to have means that deviate from means of periods outside of the special time periods, receiving, from each of the plurality of data sources, indications of actions performed by the plurality of targets using the plurality of data sources within a specified period, an identifier of the plurality of the targets that performed each of the actions, and dates of the specified period, applying the definitions of the plurality of behaviors to the indications of actions, for each of the plurality of targets to identify a plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets, identifying at least one applicable period type of the plurality of period types for the specified period, identifying a count for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets during the specified period, determining at least one statistic including a mean number of times each behavior of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets was performed in at least one period before the specified period for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining at least one behavior score for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type by applying a model to the at least one statistic for each of the plurality of behaviors by each of the plurality of targets and to a number of times each of the plurality of behaviors was identified as performed by each of the plurality of targets, determining a period type score for each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type based on the at least one behavior score for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining a total score for each of the plurality of targets based on a the period type score for each of the at least one applicable period type for each target, and automatically revoking a target's privileges on at least one of the plurality of data sources by automatically retrieving identification information of a target from a database and sending the identification information and a revocation instruction to the at least one of the plurality of data sources responsive to the total score or at least one of the at least one period type score for said target being outside of a threshold indicating anomalous behavior of the target. This 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 hardware computer processor and computer system element, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses a person can perform the steps of identifying applicable period type for a specified period, counting each behavior, determining a mean number for each behavior, applying a mathematical model, and determining a score, with the use of pen and paper. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is performed by the human administrator, using the computer. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that can be conducted mentally by a person with the aid of pen and paper by stating what systems the user has access to. For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses allows users to receive and apply the definition information and revoke privileges of users, with the use of mitigating risk. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is mitigating risk of improper behavior and prevent user from performing activity he or she could have performed otherwise. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that mitigating risk of fundamental economic practice of suspected of improper behavior. Therefore, the applicant’s argument(s) is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not a mental process and could not be performed just in the human mind or with pencil and paper, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are nothing more than a series of “mental steps” that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper—a subject matter that falls within the three types of abstract ideas identified in the Revised Guidance. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under [§] 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[Mental processes—or processes of human thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”); Gottschalk vy. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, . . . mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” (Emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that in regard to Step 2A, Prong 2 and the claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because these claims “solves a problem that is rooted in computer technology” similar to the claims in DDR Holdings and RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit found DDR’s claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because DDR’s claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a “solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR and RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., the current case does not make specific improvement to the technology. The steps recited in claims does not provide any “technical solution to a technical problem” as contemplated by the Federal Circuit in DDR. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights