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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 6/3/2025, in which, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/3/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 6/3/2025 is accepted.
Double Patenting
1. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of US 11475158 B1. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of US 11475158 B1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-20 of US 11475158 B1 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of US 12326957 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of US 12326957 B2.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-20 of US 12326957 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are directed to a method and system (apparatus). The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original).
The USPTO published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO's examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. 1
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(l), 2106.04(a). If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d). Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2).
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05.
In addition, the USPTO published updated guidance on July 17, 2024 for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility, including on Artificial Intelligence under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2024 GUIDANCE UPDATE ON PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 89 Fed. Reg. 137 (July. 17, 2024) (the “2024 Update”). The 20224 Update assists USPTO personnel and stakeholders in evaluating the subject matter eligibility of claims in patent applications and patents involving inventions related to AI technology (AI inventions). This update also announced a new set of examples that are intended to assist USPTO personnel in applying the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidance to AI inventions during patent examination, appeal, and post-grant proceedings. In particular, claim 2 of example 47 (“anomaly detection using AI”) of 2024 Update, is pertinent to analysis of the present claims.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
The abstract idea to which claims 21, 32-33 are directed to is mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and mathematical relationships/calculations. In particular, the claims recite the following abstract concepts:
(a) “receiving, from an organization, organization-specific examples including non-invertible feature maps extracted from organization-sensitive documents and ground truth labels without receiving the organization-sensitive documents,” (i.e., abstract idea of collecting data/information as found abstract by the Courts in Internet Patents, Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, Electric Power Group, Classen, FairWarning)
(b) “using the received organization-specific examples to train a customer-specific deep learning (DL) stack classifier using the non-invertible feature maps and the ground truth labels” (i.e., abstract idea of concepts relating to tracking/organizing/classifying data by using a mathematical algorithm at a higher level of generality to train a classifier. Note: Example 47, claim 2 of 2024 Update, explains the binning and clustering are basic mathematical algorithms, and can be performed mentally and thus abstract)
(c) “sending the customer-specific DL stack classifier to the organization” (i.e., abstract idea of mental process of informing, notifying, displaying the result of data processing to an entity as found abstract by the Courts in FairWarning, Content Extraction. Court has noted “merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” See e.g., Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 1353–54)
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified abstract ideas in patent claims by making comparisons to concepts found in past decisions to be judicial exceptions to eligibility. The 2019 IEG summarizes concepts the courts have considered to be abstract ideas by associating eligibility decisions with judicial descriptors (e.g., “an idea of itself,” “certain methods of organizing human activities”, “mathematical relationships and formulas”) based on common characteristics. These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of data processing (i.e., abstract idea mental process and mathematical transformation/correlation) and providing the processed data to an entity, as defined by the claimed steps above. See also,
The present claims, as a whole, and individual limitations, are reciting abstract concept of data collection and to sort data into specific classes/categories. As such the claims are analogous to FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093-94 (concluding claims directed to "collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected" to be mental processes within the abstract-idea category); Electric Power Group; and TLI Comms. Note that merely using well-known and commonly used data processing algorithm of machine learning in a generic and superficial manner to categorize the data does not convert a known abstract idea (i.e., data categorization) into an eligible subject matter. See, Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data is simply being collected and processed to perform sorting which was ruled abstract in:
a. Collecting and comparing known information (Classen);
b. Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC);
c. Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning);
d. Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction);
e. Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource);
f. Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group);
g. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
h. Methods for dynamically generating event schedules by training ML models on historical data and updating schedules in real time found to be abstract (Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp);
i. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams);
j. Collecting, selecting, categorizing, analysis, and display results of the analysis (Electric Power Group);
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than data processing (i.e., abstract idea mental process and mathematical transformation/correlation) and providing the processed data to an entity as described in the claims that can be performed mentally (or with a pen and piece of paper). The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, methods for dynamically generating event schedules by training ML models on historical data and updating schedules in real time found to be abstract (Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp); collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group); a mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams); collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning); and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource). While the specific facts of the case differ from these cases, the claims are still directed at collecting and categorizing data. Further, each and every step can be performed mentally and with pen and paper. A computer is not necessary to receive and correlate/compare/categorize data. Even further still, any steps that deal with generating, receiving, analyzing are insignificant, extra solution activity because receiving, analyzing and transmitting data, analyzing and processing collected data are all well-known in the computer network security arts.
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2
The 2019 Revised Guidance sets forth a non-exhaustive listing of considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system/methods for data processing (i.e., abstract idea mental process and mathematical transformation/correlation) and providing the processed data to an entity as defined by the claimed steps. The claims do not require an arguably inventive set of components, methods, or algorithms. The recitation of a machine learning model to manipulate the information describes a solution merely at the level of a generic black box. The abstract idea is implemented using generic computing elements (“computers, programs, medium”) and a generic machine learning (mathematical statistical algorithm) model that do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims (step 2A, prong 2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional generic computing 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 recite a mental process and mathematical concepts, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[ e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” and “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” as examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
The relevant question under Step 2B is whether claim includes an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements of claim beyond the abstract idea, namely, a “computer hardware”, “programs”, “machine learning model” is a conventional computing equipment and algorithm used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. These additional elements do not provide an inventive concept; rather, they simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a computer when taken in combination with the functional elements claim(s) is/are directed to system and method to data processing (i.e., abstract idea mental process and mathematical transformation/correlation) and providing the processed data to an entity, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a general purpose computer and/or environment of the user). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers – in our common day-to-day interactions. Note that Applicant’s disclosure specifies the computing elements to be known, 3rd party devices available in the market (See, ¶63 of Applicant’s disclosure. See also, US 20150199010 A1, ¶60, ¶178-¶188, i.e., using supervised/unsupervised machine learning on extracted features to have predictive modeling. See also, US 20190044963 A1, ¶21, ¶31, i.e., using machine learning models with weighted factors to predicate risk scores). Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods / devices lacks an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity, e.g., data categorization.
Dependent claims do not add an inventive step to the abstract idea of the independent claims and are therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 pertain type of data used for training; where the data used for training is stored; and the type of sensitive data used without adding any inventive concept or using an unconventional computing element or improving the underlying computer technology.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210181086 A1
US 20240035954 A1
US 20180220889 A1
US 20180018553 A1
US 20230245363 A1
US 20230102055 A1
US 20220319219 A1
US 20220301124 A1
US 20210279461 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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 A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
1 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Prosecution Insights