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 .
This action is in response to response filed on 7/15/2025. This action is FINAL.
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.
Claim 1-2, 5-8, 17-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “detecting… that a value of a dependency call performance metric of the dependency call is outside of a threshold range”, “comparing the y value to the expected value”, “determining…whether the service or the dependency is the entity causing the issue”, “generating… a support ticket” and ”identifying support application for resolving the issue…”. The limitations of “detecting”, “comparing”, “determining”, “generating” and “identifying” as drafted are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “obtaining from the service, a machine learning (ML) model”, “providing, to the ML model...the common set of dependency calling inputs”, “obtaining, from the ML model… an expected value”, and “providing the support ticket to support personnel to address the entity causing the issue”. The additional elements of “obtaining from the service” and “providing, to the ML model”, “obtaining, from the ML model” and “providing the support ticket” are insignificant pre and post solution activities. Storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (2106.05(d)). Further, the limitation “a cloud computing platform” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the 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 or amount to an improvement to a computer related technology.
Under Step 2B, 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “obtaining from the service” and “providing, to the ML model”, “obtaining, from the ML model” and “providing the support ticket” are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (2106.05(d)). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and the well-understood, routine, conventional activities do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2, contains additional limitations of the abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 5, contains additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 6-8, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 21, contains additional limitations of the abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 22-24, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 17-18 contain similar limitations to claims 1-2, therefore they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20, claims “if the different exceeds the threshold, the dependency is determined as causing…” and “if the difference does not exceed the threshold, the service is determined as causing…”. These are additional limitations of the abstract idea “Mental Process”. Nothing in these limitations preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites, “detect… that a value of a dependency call performance metric of the dependency call is outside of a threshold range”, “compare the value to the expected value”, “determine…whether the service or the dependency is causing the value to be outside of the threshold range” and “generate… an indication of the entity causing the issue”. The limitations of “detect”, “compare”, “determine” and “generate” as drafted are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “obtain, from the dependency, a machine learning (ML) model”, “provide, the ML model...the common set of dependency call parameters”, “obtain, from the ML model… an expected value”, “providing the indication for display”, “publishing the indication…in a event…”, “…report the indication” and “publish the indication…in a log file…”. The additional elements of “obtaining from the service” and “providing, to the ML model”, “obtaining, from the ML model”, “provide an indication of the entity causing the issue”, “publishing”, “report” and “publishing” are insignificant pre and post solution activities. Further, the limitation “a cloud computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the 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 or amount to an improvement to a computer related technology.
Under Step 2B, 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “obtain from the dependency” and “provide, to the ML model”, “obtain, from the ML model”, “provide the indication for display”, “publishing the indication…in a event…”, “…report the indication” and “publish the indication…in a log file…” are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (2106.05(d)). Storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (2106.05(d)). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and the well-understood, routine, conventional activities do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10, contains additional limitations of the abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 12-13, contains additional limitations of the abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind and none of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 14-16, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C
§
101:
Applicant states that the office action alleges the claims falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas and argues accordingly. The examiner disagrees and states that the abstract idea in which the current rejection and previous rejection are based on is a “Mental Process” not “Certain methods of organizing human activity”. Please see the above 101 rejection.
Applicant further argues, “In the present application, the claimed invention improves, at least, the technical field of root cause analysis (e.g., error fault diagnosis in computing devices and systems). For example, as described in paragraph [0016] of the specification:
Providing automated cause determining, in this regard, can allow for more intuitive issue reporting by forwarding information of the issue to the correct support personnel (e.g., the support personnel for the service of the support personnel for the dependency). This may mitigate unnecessary issue investigation by support personnel for the entity not determined to be causing the issue.
The language in paragraph [0016] indicated a technical problem and a technical solution to overcome that technical problem. The technical solution enables reducing the time and compute resources (e.g., memory and CPU/GPU load) used to investigate root causes analyses, while also improving accuracy of root cause analyses and optimizing the support entity selection and notification process.”
The examiner disagrees. Providing automated cause determining, is nothing more than automating them manual/mental process of cause determination and reporting the issue to the correct support personnel is also a mental step. Automating a mental step is not an improvement to a technical field. The applicant further states that the technical solution reduces time and computer resources but this is not in paragraph 16 of the specification and this is nothing more than general allegations. Nothing in said claims bring out these resource improvements. Therefore, the current rejection stands.
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 MARK A GOORAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/MARK A GOORAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199