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 office action is in response to the listing of claims filed on June 4, 2025. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determination of an anomaly in data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention can be interpreted to be nothing more than a mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely input, calculate, and output data.
A. Claim 1 is analyzed according to SME flowchart. Claim 1 is directed to a method of anomaly determination. According to step 1, of claim 1 comprises extracting a communication triplet indicating device information and a type of information. This data is used in calculations. Claim 1 also comprises a machine learning model and data in vector form. The system of claim 1 fits one of the statutory categories and claim 1 qualifies as a process.
B. When considering step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The type of abstract is categorized under a mental process and a mathematical calculation. In essence, claim 1 takes input data In the form of a triplet and calculates a probability score using a model. The device information and packet type information are calculated into a vector, the vector representing if a packet is predicted to be expected. In other words, if the packet is anomaly or expected. With respect to dependent claims 2-7, actual calculations that are applicable are shared and do not impact the functions of the mental process and mathematical calculation.
C. The additional features of claim 1 are considered in step 2A, prong 2. The additional features of claim 1 are considered for determination of whether the claims are integrated in a practical application. The first addition feature is the implementation of the method involves a machine learning model, which implies a processor. The processor is used as a tool for implementing the functions claimed not to make an improvement to computer technology. The second additional limitation is the calculations of a prediction score, which can in broadest reasonable interpretation be a mental process and a mathematical calculation. These are not an improvement in computer technology. Thus, claim 1 fails to recite additional features to integrate into a practical application in a technological environment or field of use. Dependent claims 2-7 recite further delays. Dependent claims 2-7 recite the formulas and calculations used to make the prediction scores and vectors. These features fail to integrate claims 2-7 into a practical application.
D. The additional limitations of claim 1 are considered in Step 2B. Claim 1 does not recite additional limitations the amount to more than the judicial exception. One additional limitation is the vector which is a well understood type of data structure such as a listing. The vector does not integrate the invention in a technological field or a particular machine. Using a machine learning model for the vector is not an integration into a technical solution. Another additional limitation is the calculated probability score which does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. The last addition limitations is using the output value to assess if a packet is predicted to be present based on past data, that is if the packet is expected or an anomaly. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, recite further types of calculating involved in this assessment and fail to provide an improvement to computer network technology.
Claims 8-9 represent a system and computer-readable medium forms of claim 1. They suffer the same issues highlighted above and as such, are similarly rejected.
Claims 1-9 are therefore rejected under 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights