Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/648,576

MACHINE LEARNING ASSISTED REMEDIATION OF NETWORKED COMPUTING FAILURE PATTERNS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 21, 2022
Examiner
LIN, KATHERINE Y
Art Unit
2113
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
320 granted / 351 resolved
+36.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
382
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 351 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the Spec in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 recites "a new disruption context… wherein the new disruption context includes pending instructions.” However, the Spec is silent on this subject. The Spec states "corresponding context information for each historical event (such as error codes, instructions executed prior to the event, pending instructions,...)" in par 39. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayden et al. (US 20190163594 A1). Hayden discloses: 1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method (CIM) comprising: receiving a set of historical disruption of service alerts and their corresponding solutions; (par 89: Many log monitoring tools exist. An agent runs on the nodes within the environment and monitors the log files. The agent notifies an application whenever a log file changes or whenever an error is detected in a log; par 87: Machine learning (ML) model 610 is trained based on summarized problem descriptions 601 and summarized solutions 602; par 95) training a machine learning model for determining patterns for disruption of service alerts and their corresponding solutions; (par 87, 139; fig 13) receiving a new disruption of service alert for a first networked computing cluster (par 57, 59), a new disruption context, and a corresponding set of historical disruption of service events (log files) for the first networked computing cluster, wherein the new disruption context includes pending instructions; (par 135, 139) determining whether the new disruption of service alert corresponds to a pattern of disruption of service events in the corresponding set of historical disruption of service events for the first networked computing cluster based, at least in part, on the machine learning model; (par 88, 118, 135; fig 12: 1206) determining a set of automated remedial steps to remedy the new disruption of service alert based, at least in part, on the machine learning model; and (par 71, 101) automatically executing the set of automated remedial steps on the first networked computing cluster, wherein the set of automated remedial steps includes restarting one or more computers associated with the new disruption of service alert. (par 71) 2. (Original) The CIM of claim 1, wherein networked computing clusters are cloud computing clusters. (par 59) 3. (Original) The CIM of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that the new disruption of service alert corresponds to a pattern of disruption of service events, outputting an alert message to a computer device, wherein the message includes information indicative of the pattern; and (fig 12: 1207) responsive to determining the set of automated remedial steps to remedy the new disruption of service alert, outputting a message to the computer device, with the message including the set of automated remedial steps as one or more subsets of steps for selection by a user. (par 110) 4. (Original) The CIM of claim 3, wherein automatically executing the set of automated remedial steps on the first networked computing cluster is responsive to receiving user input corresponding to a selection of the one or more subsets in the message, with the automatically executed set of automated remedial steps corresponding to the selected subset of steps selected by the user. (par 110) 5. (Original) The CIM of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that the new disruption of service alert does not correspond to a pattern of disruption of service events, determining a set of similar disruption of service events from the corresponding set of historical disruption of service events for the first networked computing cluster based, at least in part, on the machine learning model; (par 94-95, 123) wherein determining the set of automated remedial steps to remedy the new disruption of service alert includes determining one or more subsets of steps to remedy the new disruption of service alert based, at least in part, on the set of similar disruption of service events. (par 138, 123) 6. (Original) The CIM of claim 5, further comprising: responsive to determining the set of automated remedial steps to remedy the new disruption of service alert, communicating a message to a computer device, with the message including the set of automated remedial steps as one or more subsets of steps for selection by a user, including information indicative of which similar disruption of service events correspond to the subsets of steps; and (par 110, 123) receiving user input corresponding to a selection of at least one subset of steps for automatic execution on the first networked computing cluster; (par 110) wherein automatically executing the set of automated remedial steps on the first networked computing cluster corresponds to automatically executing the selected at least one subset of steps on the first networked computing cluster. (par 110) Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected as being the product implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-6, and is/are rejected on the same grounds. Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected as being the system implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-6, and is/are rejected on the same grounds. Response to Remarks The examiner was unable to reach the applicant on 1-27-2026. If an amendment overcomes the 112(a) rejection, the prior art rejection will be considered withdrawn. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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. /KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 21, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 30, 2025
Interview Requested
May 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 13, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596953
QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION USING NEURAL NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591476
EMPTY PAGE DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585556
ACTIVE COMPONENT DRIVEN COMPUTATIONAL SERVER RELIABILITY AND FAILURE PREVENTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585530
SINGLE SIGNAL DEBUG PORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585560
REFINING PARAMETER SETTINGS FOR COPY SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+7.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 351 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month